Back
1967 Supreme(Pat) 111
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.L.Narasimham, R.K.Choudhary and N.L.Untwalia JJ.
Hridaya Narain Singh
Versus
Md.Sharif
A.F.A.O. No. 400 of 1963 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 16, 1967
The educational and social backwardness of a community justifies the classification as a backward community, and the absence of an express notification excluding an area leads to the applicability of relevant provisions of the law to that area.
Headnote:
Validity of Sec. 49M of the Bihar Tenancy Act - Notification describing Hajams as a backward community - Educational and social backwardness of Hajams - Applicability of Sec. 49M to notified areas under the Bihar Tenancy Act
Fact of the Case:
The appeal questioned the validity of Sec. 49M of the Bihar Tenancy Act and a notification describing Hajams as a backward community. The issue of applicability of Sec. 49M to a notified area under the Bihar Tenancy Act was also raised.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Hajams were socially and educationally backward, and there was no ground for striking down the notification solely based on caste name. The lower appellate court's rejection of the argument regarding the applicability of Sec. 49M to a notified area was upheld.
Issues: Validity of Sec. 49M of the Bihar Tenancy Act, notification describing Hajams as a backward community, and the applicability of Sec. 49M to notified areas under the Bihar Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The educational and social backwardness of Hajams justified the notification describing them as a backward community. The absence of an express notification excluding a notified area from the operation of the Bihar Tenancy Act led to the applicability of Sec. 49M to that area.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the lower appellate court's decision was upheld.
R.L.Narasimham, J.
1. This appeal was also heard analogously with Miscellaneous Appeals No. 97 of 1962 and No. 306 of 1963, and the main constitutional questions related to the validity of Sec. 49M of the Bihar Tenancy Act and notification No. A/T-1015/55-1091-R., dated the 7th February, 1956, of the Government of Bihar, describing Hajams (item No. 13) as a backward community.
2. Mr. Mahendra Prasad Pandey has not been able to produce before us any material for holding that Hajams (Hindus and Muslims) are not socially and educationally backward. On the other hand, in Mr P.C. Roy Choudhrys Gazetteer of Darbhanga District, at page 86, it was pointed out:
"The incidence of literacy among them appears to be very low but a few of them who are educated have taken up other professions also."
Their educational backwardness is thus beyond question. Socially also, there is no data to show that they are not backward. Hence, there is no ground for striking down the notification for the sole reason that the classes have been described by their caste name.
3 One of the points taken up in the lower courts, and somewhat half-heartedly, if I may say so, argued before us, was that some of the lands in question were situated in village Harkhauli, which is a notified area under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, and that, consequently, the provisions of Sec. 49M of the Bihar Tenancy Act may not apply to that area. This argument was rightly rejected by the lower appellate Court. In Shrikishun Lal V/s. Harihar Sah AIR 1949 Pat 444, a Bench of this Court held that, for a municipal area to be excluded from the operation of the Bihar Tenancy Act, there must be an express notification excluding the same. Hence, even if "notified area" be taken to be a municipality for the purpose of Sec.1 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. as no notification expressly excluding Harkhauli from the operation of that Act has been produced, it must be held that the provisions of that Act. including Section 49M, apply to that area.
4. This appeal is also dismissed with costs; hearing fee Rs. 100.
R.K.Choudhary, J.
5 I agree.
N.L.Untwalia, J.
6 I agree.
