Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Banerji and Choudhary JJ.
Ram Kumari Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Case No. 573 of 1954 ;
Decided On : MAY 10, 1956
LAND REFORMS ACT - BUILDING USED PRIMARILY FOR COLLECTION OF RENT - DETERMINATION OF FACT - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, trustees of a large estate, challenged a notice issued by the Collector directing them to hand over vacant possession of a building to the Anchal Adhikari, claiming it was a kutchery building that vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioners contended that the building was not primarily used for rent collection and thus did not vest in the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector acted without jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the building as it was not primarily used for rent collection within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Land Reforms Act. The court found that the building was primarily used for the proprietor's residential purpose and for deriving income from agricultural produce, which constituted the main source of income.
Issues: 1. Whether the building in question was primarily used for collection of rent within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Land Reforms Act. 2. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to hand over possession of the building.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4(a) of the Land Reforms Act and held that a building vests in the State only if it is primarily used for collection of rent. The use of the word "primarily" by the legislature signifies that even if rent was casually collected in a building, it cannot vest in the State unless it is established that it was primarily used for that purpose. 2. The court held that the determination of whether a building was primarily used for rent collection is not a pure question of fact but an issue of jurisdictional fact. Therefore, the High Court has the authority to review the Collector's decision in a proceeding for taking possession of the building under Section 4(g) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued by the Collector directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the building. The court also awarded costs to the petitioners.
Choudhary, J.
1. This is an application, under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
2. One Babu Ajodhya Prasad Singh of village. Nava Kothi, P. S. Bakhari, district Monghyr, was possessed of a large property consisting of about 4000 acres of agricultural lands in his possession and an income of about Rs. 9000.00 per year as cash rental receivable from tenants. The average yearly income from the agricultural lands was nearly Rs. 150,000/-. These lands lie in several villages one of which is village Kusmaut. In this village he had about 2,500 bighas of cultivable lands yielding an approximate income of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The tenants who pay cash rental live in different villages lying under different police stations. In village Kusmaut, accoding to the petitioners, there is only one tenant who pays about Rs. 5/- as rent per year, while, according to the opposite party, there are two tenants who pay Rs. 29/7/- as rent per year.
In this village there is a fairly big pucca build-Ing which is recorded in the survey record-of-rights as being a pucca building o£ the said Babu Ajodhya Prasad Singh. In April, 1945, he created a trust of his entire properties and the petitioners are the trustees thereof. The estate held by these petitioners as trustees vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in pursuance of a notification dated 22-5-1953. On 28-9-1954, a notice was issued by the Collector of Monghyr to the petitioners for making over vacant possession of this building to the Anchal-Adhikari of Begusarai by 15-10-1954, as, according to him, it was a kutchery building.
On 13-10-1954, an application was filed on behalf of the trustees before the Collector stating that the building in question was not a kutchery and, as such, they should not be asked to make over possession of the same to the Anchal Adhikari. This application was disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate in the capacity of a Revenue Collector who passed an order on 15-10-1954 direct-Ing the Sub-divisional Officer of Begusarai to make an enquiry into the matter. On 28-10-1954, the Circle inspector asked the petitioner No. 7 to give vacant possession of the said building and on the next day an application was made on behalf of the trustees before the Anchal Adhikari requesting him not to interfere with their possession over the building till the final disposal of the matter pending before the Revenue Collector.
Again on 30-10-1954, the same Circle Inspector asked him to make over possession of the building In question and he further stated that orders in writing were received in his office for taking possession of the building by force. Thereafter the present application was made in this Court on 1-11-1954, and the members of the opposite party were restrained from taking possession of the building till the hearing of this application.
3. It appears that some time after the present application was filed in this Court, Mr. R. Prasad, the Additional Sub-divisional Officer, submitted his report with regard to the enquiry which was di- rected to be made by the Revenue Collector. , According to the petitioners, they had no knowledge whatsoever of any enquiry having been made by the Additional Sub-divisional Officer or about the report that he submitted. On 12-5-1955, a show cause petition was filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, but nothing about the enquiry and the report was stated though the petitioners in their writ application had clearly stated that to their knowledge the enquiry had been made.
The case was listed for hearing and it was actually heard on 6-3-1956 and 8-3-1956. On second day of the hearing the learned Government Pleader appearing for the opposite party brought to our notice that the Additional sub-divisional officer had made the enquiry and submitted his report and a copy of the said report was produced before us. At our direction a copy of that report was given to the learned counsel for the petition
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
