Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.S.Sahay and Krishna Ballabh Sinha JJ.
Sharda Prasad Rai
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2814 of 1982 ;
Decided On : MAY 20, 1983
LAND REFORMS - Res judicata - Applicability - Previous orders passed under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Act) - Whether operate as res judicata and bar subsequent proceedings under Sec. 4 (g) of the Act - Held, yes - Fresh proceeding under Sec. 4 (g) of the Act barred by the principles of constructive res judicata.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sahebganj, and restoring the land in dispute to the ex-landlord. The land in dispute was recorded as Simoltala Jhil in a private rent settlement of 1912 as Gair Mazrua Malik. Petitioners' ancestor filed an application for settlement of raiyati land in 1919, which was accepted by the landlord, and a Kabuliat was executed for agriculture purposes. Petitioners acquired occupancy rights over the land and paid rent to the State after vesting. In 1954, a proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act was initiated, which was dropped in 1955. In 1963, another proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) was initiated and decided in favor of the petitioners. In 1966, a fresh proceeding under Sec. 4 (g) of the Act was initiated, which resulted in the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the previous orders passed under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act operated as res judicata and barred the subsequent proceedings under Sec. 4 (g) of the Act. The Court observed that the two provisions, Sec. 4 (g) and 4 (h), have different connotations but are not entirely distinct. The authority deciding the proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act could have taken recourse to Sec. 4 (g) also if that provision was applicable to the instant case. The Court further held that the State, having not preferred an appeal against the previous orders, was not competent to reopen the matter, as it amounted to doing a thing indirectly which cannot be done directly.
Issues: 1. Whether the previous orders passed under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Act) operate as res judicata and bar subsequent proceedings under Sec. 4 (g) of the Act? 2. Whether the State is competent to reopen the matter after not preferring an appeal against the previous orders?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata extends to revenue matters and writ proceedings. 2. The proceedings under Sec. 4 (g) and 4 (h) of the Act are judicial proceedings. 3. The authority deciding the proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act could have taken recourse to Sec. 4 (g) also if that provision was applicable to the instant case. 4. The State, having not preferred an appeal against the previous orders, was not competent to reopen the matter, as it amounted to doing a thing indirectly which cannot be done directly.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sahebganj, and restoring the land in dispute to the ex-landlord.
P.S.Sahay, J.
1. The petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, dated 13-7-1982. as contained in Annexure-10, passed as an appellate Court in a proceeding under Sec. 4 (g) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sahebganj, dated 17-8-1970, as contained in Annexure-9.
2. Before coming to the points which have been raised in this application it will be necessary to refer same material facts. The lands in dispute relate to plot No. 159 situated in Mauza Hajipur Bisbrampur in the district of Samthat Parganas having an area of 387 bighas 16 kathas and 8 dhurs of land. This was recorded as Simoltala Jhil in a private rent settlement of the year 1912 as Gair Mazrua Malik. A copy of the record of rights prepared in the year 1912 has been filed and marked Annexure-8. The lands aforesaid belonged to the Grants Estate whose proprietors generally lived in England and the properties were managed through Manager. Shiv Sagar Rai, ancestor of the petitioners, filed an application in form-A before the Manager for the purpose of settlement of raiyati land sometimes in the year 1919 which was accepted by the landlord and a Kabuliat was executed which was duly registered for agriculture purposes and rent was fixed at the rate of Re. 1/- and 8 Annas per bigha with specific boundaries. Portions of the Tand were fit for cultivation and some portions were under water and according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Kabuliat the entire land had to be made fit for cultivation within fifteen years. After rating settlement rabi and kharif crops were grown On the embankments and fish were taken out from the remaining portion which was under water. A photostat copy of the Kabuliat dated 24-3-1919 has been filed and marked Annexure-1. Several rent suits were filed by the ex-landlords in which it was held that the petitioners who were raiyats had acquired the statuts of occupancy raiyat and a judgment of the rent suits have been filed and marked Annexure-2 series. There was rent reduction in the year 1939 under Regulation 1 of 1939 and the rent of the land in question was reduced from Rs. 581/11 annas and 9 paise to Rs. 456/12 annas and 3 paise. Sometimes in the year 1946 there was a proposal for acquiring the land and the Government through the Subdivisional Officer, Sahibganj, wanted to ascertain the status of the petitioners and a letter was sent in this connection on 5-8-1946 to the Manager of the landlords which is Annexure-3 to which a reply was sent on 7-8-1946, Annexure-4, stating therein that the petitioner No. 1 was a permanent tenant in respect of the land in question having acquired full tenancy fights on the lands including the Jalker. In the year 1951 a portion of the land was infested with deep rooted jungles and tractor was obtained from the District Agricultural Officer, Bhagalpur, for clearing the same which would be evident from Annexure-5. After the Act came into force the ex-landlord submitted return showing the petitioners as raiyat of the holding in question
3. A proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act was initiated which gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 1954-55 which was ultimately dropped by the Revenue Sub-divisional Officer on 13-12-1955 who also ordered for starting a proceeding against the Circle Inspector for submitting a false report Thereafter, there were proceedings under Sections 144 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which were also decided in favour of the petitioners. After the vesting, the petitioners are paying rent to the State had obtaining receipts. Again in the year 1963 another proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act was started which gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1963-64 and the matter was decided in favour of the petitioners A copy of this order has been filed and marked as Annexure-6. It was also held that the petitioners had acquire
AI
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
