Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Uday Sinha and S.Shamsul Hasan JJ.
Harishchandra Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2051 of 1977 ;
Decided On : JULY 5, 1984
CEILING ACT - SECTION 45-B - RE-OPENING OF CONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS - VALIDITY - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT OR COLLECTOR - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 45-B - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 31A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Mahanth Ramanand Das and the deities of Patepur Asthal, challenged the re-opening of a concluded ceiling case under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) by the State Government and the Collector under Section 45-B of the Act. The petitioners contended that the re-opening of the case was illegal and without jurisdiction, that the principles of res judicata barred the re-examination of the same facts, and that the power to re-open cases was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act was not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and that the power to re-open concluded proceedings was valid. The Court interpreted Section 45-B to impose three limitations upon the revenue authorities before ordering the re-opening of cases: (1) the record must be examined, (2) reasons must be recorded for re-opening, and (3) it can be re-opened only if the previous order was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court also held that the power to re-open cases was not discriminatory as it was not arbitrary and unguided, and that the requirement of examining the record took away the sting of arbitrariness.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the power to re-open concluded proceedings under Section 45-B was valid? 3. Whether the re-opening of the ceiling case in the present case was illegal and without jurisdiction? 4. Whether the principles of res judicata barred the re-examination of the same facts? 5. Whether the power to re-open cases was discriminatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act was not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution because it imposed three limitations upon the revenue authorities before ordering the re-opening of cases: (1) the record must be examined, (2) reasons must be recorded for re-opening, and (3) it can be re-opened only if the previous order was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. These limitations ensured that the power was not arbitrary and unguided. 2. The power to re-open concluded proceedings under Section 45-B was valid because it was necessary to ensure that ceiling cases were disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The power was hedged by limitations to prevent its arbitrary exercise. 3. The re-opening of the ceiling case in the present case was not illegal and without jurisdiction because the Collector had examined the record and found that the previous order was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Collector had also recorded reasons for re-opening the case. 4. The principles of res judicata did not bar the re-examination of the same facts because Section 45-B specifically empowered the State Government and the Collector to re-open concluded proceedings. 5. The power to re-open cases was not discriminatory because it was not arbitrary and unguided, and because the requirement of examining the record took away the sting of arbitrariness.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed C.W.J.C. Nos. 4699 of 1978 and 308 of 1979 with costs. The Court allowed C.W.J.C. No. 2051 of 1977 with costs.
UDAY SINHA, J.
1. The common question of law involved in these three applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution relates to the ambit and parameter of the power of State Government or Collector to re-open concluded proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 hereinafter called the Ceiling Act by virtue of the power conferred by S.45-B of the said Act as also the vires of S.45-B. They have been heard together and shall, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The facts necessary for appreciating the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners must be stated herein now. There is an Asthal (a kind of free monastery in which communities of religious medicants reside together under a Mahant) in the district of Vaishali known as Patepur Asthal. Mahanth Ramanand Das is the Head of the Asthal. The Asthal has set up temples at different places and various deities have been installed therein. The Asthal was possessed of vast landed properties. According to the petitioner, the properties ascribed to separate temples in turn vest in the deities as Debottar properties. The Ceiling Act having been enacted, the petitioner Mahanth filed return of lands in possession of the petitioners. Ceiling Case No. 30 of 1974 was initiated accordingly. Draft statements in terms of S.10 (2) having been published, the Collector after hearing objections, by order dated 23-121975 (Annexure-1) declared 137.30 acres of class II lands as surplus. Notification in terms of S.11 (1) was accordingly issued. The order of the Collector contained in Annexure-1 was approved by State Government by Annexure-4 in 1976. It appears that the approval by State Government by Annexure-4 did not conclude matters. In Jan., 1978 Government being of the view that probably the adjudication of surplus lands had not been in accordance with law, issued notice to Mahanth Ramanand Das to show cause why the adjudication regarding the declaration of surplus lands be not nullified and the matter be not re-examined afresh. This notice was in terms of S.45-B of the Ceiling Act. S.45-B has not been mentioned in the notice (Annexure-5), but the tenor of the notice shows clearly that it was in terms of S.45B. The petitioners showed cause challenging the power and jurisdiction of the State Government to take recourse to S.45-B of the Ceiling Act. While the cause shown by the petitioners was under consideration, on 4-7-1978, by Annexure-6 Collector, Vaishali called upon petitioner No. 1 to produce the Cash Book for the period 1959-60 to 1970-71. This was to be produced by 22-7-1978. The order was not complied and no cash book was produced. By order dated 19-8-1978 (Annexure-7) the State Government resolved that the matter needed to be examined afresh. Orders were, therefore, passed to reopen and examine the matter afresh. The State Government having ordered re-opening of the ceiling case, the Collector, Vaishali by notice dated 29-9-1978 (Annexure-8) fixed 18-10-1978 for hearing of the matter. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to appear in person or through counsel before Collector, Vaishali. Being aggrieved by Annexures 7 and 8, re-opening the assessment of surplus, petitioner No. 1 and the deities have moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4699 of 1978 for quashing Annexures-7 and 8.
3. C. W. J. C. No. 308 of 1979 is for quashing Annexures-6, 7 and 8 to the said application. By Annexure-6 of this application after the order for re-opening the assessment, the Collector under the Act by order dated 30-10-1978 ordered launching of prosecution of the petitioner for non-compliance of order dated 30-61978 (Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C. No. 4699 of 1978). Annexure-7 is the complaint in pursuance thereof by Collector, Vaishali against Mahanth Ramanand Das, his Chela Shrikant Saran and Shiva Chandra Prasad, an employee of accused No. 1 for prosecuting the accused under S.36 of the Ceiling Act. By Annexure-8 dated
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
