1972 Supreme(Pat) 75

PATNA HIGH COURT
U.N.Sinha, K.B.N.Singh and S.Sarwar Ali JJ.
Bhauri Lal Jain
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1573 of 1970 ; 1793 of 1970 ;
Decided On : APRIL 24, 1972

The Act and the Regulation were valid pieces of legislation and were not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The provisions of the Act and the Regulation barred the acquisition of any right over land acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation, and no adverse possession could be acquired in such cases.

Headnote:

The Court examined the validity of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949) (the Act) and the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation I of 1969) (the Regulation) in light of various constitutional challenges. The Court held that the Act was a valid piece of legislation and was not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Regulation was a valid piece of legislation and was not ultra vires the Constitution. The Court further held that the provisions of the Act and the Regulation barred the acquisition of any right over land acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation, and that no adverse possession could be acquired in such cases.

Fact of the Case:

In these three writ applications, the petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, under the Act and the Regulation, directing their eviction from certain plots of land. The petitioners claimed to have acquired title to the lands by adverse possession. The State of Bihar was impleaded as a respondent in these applications.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Act and the Regulation were valid pieces of legislation and were not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court further held that the provisions of the Act and the Regulation barred the acquisition of any right over land acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation, and that no adverse possession could be acquired in such cases.

Issues: 1. Whether the Act and the Regulation were violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provisions of the Act and the Regulation barred the acquisition of any right over land acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation? 3. Whether adverse possession could be acquired in such cases?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act and the Regulation were valid pieces of legislation and were not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court relied on the following grounds: * The Act was enacted to amend and supplement certain laws relating to landlord and tenant in the Santal Parganas, and was a legislation with reference to Entry 21 of List II (Provincial List) of the Government of India Act, 1935, dealing with landlord tenant relations as well as the right of the tenant in land and prohibiting transfers, except as provided therein. * The Regulation was assented to by the President and was a protected piece of legislation under Article 31-A of the Constitution and could not be held to be void on the ground that it takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the Regulation barred the acquisition of any right over land acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation. The Court relied on the following grounds: * Section 69 of the Act barred the acquisition of any right over lands acquired in contravention of Sec.20, lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, Government or local authorities land, vacant lands of Headmen, Mul Raiyats or landlords and official holdings of the Village Headmen, grazing land, laherthan and burial or burning grounds. * The Regulation amended Article 65 of the Limitation Act by providing a longer period of 30 years limitation in case of Scheduled Tribes instead of 12 years. 3. The Court held that no adverse possession could be acquired in cases where the land was acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation. The Court relied on the following grounds: * Section 20(1) of the Act prohibited transfer by a Raiyat of his holding, except in cases where the right to transfer was recorded in the record of rights. * Section 20(5) of the Act empowered the Deputy Commissioner to evict a person who has come in possession of land in contravention of Sub-sections(1) and (2) of Sec.20 of the Act, and Sec.27 of the Regulation, when such invalid transfer came to his notice.

Final Decision: The Court allowed all three writ applications and quashed the impugned orders to the extent indicated. The Court held that the Act and the Regulation were valid pieces of legislation and were not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court further held that the provisions of the Act and the Regulation barred the acquisition of any right over land acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Regulation, and that no adverse possession could be acquired in such cases.