Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and Akbar Husain JJ.
Motilal Padampat Sugar Co.Pvt.Ltd.
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1871 of 1970 ; 1873 of 1970 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 13, 1972
LAND REFORMS - Fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land - Sugar-cane farms - Exemption - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), Secs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 29 - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, Rules 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Fact of the Case:
Three writ petitions were filed challenging the draft statements prepared by the Collector under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, on the ground that the procedures prescribed in the Act and the Rules were not followed. The petitioners, who owned sugar-cane farms, claimed exemption under various provisions of the Act, including Sec. 29(1)(b)(vii), which exempts land required in connection with any other non-agricultural or industrial purpose, to the extent approved by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the draft statements were prepared arbitrarily and illegally without following the procedures prescribed in the Act and the Rules. It found that the authorities had not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules before preparing the draft statements under Rule 10. The Court also held that the returns filed by the petitioners, though marked "without prejudice," could not be considered non est in the eye of law and that exemptions had been claimed in respect of the entire area of the lands for which returns had been filed.
Issues: 1. Whether the draft statements prepared by the Collector were arbitrary and illegal due to non-compliance with the procedures prescribed in the Act and the Rules? 2. Whether the returns filed by the petitioners, though marked "without prejudice," could be considered non est in the eye of law? 3. Whether exemptions had been claimed in respect of the entire area of the lands for which returns had been filed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the procedures prescribed in Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules had not been followed. It stated that the returns had been filed, and marking them "without prejudice" could not make them non est in the eye of law. Exemptions had been claimed in respect of the entire area of the lands for which returns had been filed. That being so, it was necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules before preparing the draft statements under Rule 10. 2. The Court held that the returns filed by the petitioners, though marked "without prejudice," could not be considered non est in the eye of law. It stated that exemptions had been claimed in respect of the entire area of the lands for which returns had been filed. That being so, it was necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules before preparing the draft statements under Rule 10. 3. The Court held that exemptions had been claimed in respect of the entire area of the lands for which returns had been filed. That being so, it was necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules before preparing the draft statements under Rule 10.
Final Decision: The Court allowed all three writ petitions, quashed the draft statements, and remitted the cases to the authorities below with a direction to proceed in accordance with law in the light of the judgment.
Untwalia, J.
1. These three writ applications have been heard together as their facts are similar and the points involved In them are identical. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. After briefly stating the facts of the three cases, I shall indicate the points involved in all of them at one place. C.W.J.C. No. 1871 of 1970.
3. The petitioner is a company in corporated under the Indian Companies Act and owns a sugar factory at Majhaulia in the district of Champaran. It also owns sugar-cane farms in the district of Champaran, the area of which is about 1700 acres. The petitioner filed a return on the 30th of May, 1970, a copy of which is annexure "1" to the writ application, in accordance with Sec. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962) hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The return was filed stating that it was "without prejudice", as, according to the petitioners case, its farms are not subject to the provisions of the Act; they are exempt from the law of ceiling imposed by the Act In the return, the total area of the farms was given as 1689.60 acres and exemption was claimed under the various sub-clauses of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.29 of the Act, as also under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.29. The case of the petitioner is that, without following the procedure prescribed in the Act and in the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), respondent No. 3, the Officer exercising the powers of Collector under the Act at Bettiah, prepared a draft statement, dated the 30th of September. 1970, a copy of which is annexure "3" to the writ application. In this case, the petitioner Company had written letters, dated the 1st of June, 1970, to the Anchal Adhikaris concerned, a copy of which is annexure "2" to the writ application, that it had filed the return in Form LC-2 under the Act, which was to be sent to them for verification, and requested them to fix a date for the verification. The petitioners case is that, without paying any heed and without there being any report from the authorities concerned, respondent No. 3 prepared the draft statement arbitrarily and illegally. C.W.I.C. No. 1872 of 1970:-
-
4 In this case also the petitioner is a limited Company and owns a sugar factory at Narkatiaganj in the district of Champaran. In this case also the petitioner owns and operates sugar-cane farms, the total area of which is about 1200 acres. In the return filed the area mentioned was 1183.85 acres and exemption was claimed under the various sub-clauses of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), as also under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.29 of the Act. A copy of the return filed "without prejudice" is annexure "1" in this case also. One more fact will appear in this case that the Anchal Adhikari of Mainatar (respondent No. 6) issued a notice, dated the 3rd of October, 1970, a copy of which in annexure "2" to the writ application, to the petitioner Company for the purpose of enquiry to be made by him. Without following the procedures contained in the Act and the Rules, respondent No. 3 prepared a draft statement on the 30th of September, 1970 (Annexure "3" to the Writ Application) illegally and arbitrarily.
C.W.J.C. No. 1873 of 1970:-
-
5 The petitioner Company in this case owns a sugar factory at Harinagar in the District of Champaran. It also owns and operates sugar-cane farms, the total area of which is about 4500 acres. In the return filed on the 25th of June, 1970 under Sec. 6 of the Act, a copy of which is annexure "1" to the writ application, the total area of the sugar-cane farms mentioned was 4510.77 acres. Exemption was claimed, as in the other two cases, under the various provisions of Sec.29 of the Act, Without following the procedures and without issuing any notice to the petitio
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
