Back
1995 Supreme(Pat) 189
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.N.Agrawal, J.
Kashi Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 974 of 1984 ;
Decided On : MARCH 30, 1995
The classification of land, determination of units for family members, and the effect of gifts made by the landholder under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land - Classification of land - Determination of unit - Gift of land - Effect.
Fact of the Case:
The landholders challenged the orders rejecting their objections under Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the orders affirming the same by the appellate and revisional authorities. The main issues were the classification of land, determination of units for family members, and the effect of gifts made by the landholder.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authorities erred in classifying the disputed lands as Class IV without considering whether they yielded paddy, rabi, or cash crops on the appointed day, as required under Section 4(f) of the Act. The court also held that the authorities erred in granting only 1/10th unit for one minor instead of considering the number of minors in the family on the appointed day. However, the court rejected the contention that two daughters of a deceased landholder were entitled to separate units as they inherited the property after the appointed day.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities erred in classifying the disputed lands as Class IV without considering whether they yielded paddy, rabi, or cash crops on the appointed day? 2. Whether the authorities erred in granting only 1/10th unit for one minor instead of considering the number of minors in the family on the appointed day? 3. Whether two daughters of a deceased landholder were entitled to separate units?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4(f) of the Act and held that the expression "none of which yield paddy, rabi or cash crops" applies to all five types of lands mentioned in the sub-section, and not just to "other kind of land". Therefore, the authorities were required to consider whether the disputed lands, which were found to be "hilly", yielded paddy, rabi, or cash crops on the appointed day. 2. The court held that the authorities should have considered the number of minors in the family on the appointed day, as per the provisions of the Act, and granted units accordingly. 3. The court held that the two daughters of the deceased landholder were not entitled to separate units as they inherited the property after the appointed day.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the authorities on the issues of classification of land, determination of units for minors, and the effect of gifts made by the landholder. The matter was remanded to the original authority for reconsideration in accordance with the directions given by the court.
B. N. Agrawal, J.
1. This writ application has been filed for quashing order, contained in annexure 3, whereby various objections filed on behalf of the land holders under Sec.10 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as act) have been rejected, and orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, contained in annexures 2 and 1, respectively, by which the order passed by the original authority has been affirmed.
2. Undisputetily, heirs of Feku Singh held 252 acres and odd decimals of lands, out of which 68 acres and odd decimals of lands have been declared surplus. After rejecting the objections final publication under Sec.11 of the Act has been already made. The land holders have been granted five units besides l/10th for one minor member. In this writ application, impugned orders have been attacked on fourgrounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the authorities have committed an error in holding that the lands belonging to the land holders are in Class IV, while, as a matter of fact, all the lands held by the land holders come within Class VI. In the order passed by the original authority, contained in annexure 3, it has been mentioned that the disputed lands are situated at the foot of Camoor hills but full of stones and no irrigation facility is available to any of the lands It has been further stated that as irrigation facility is not available to any of the lands, the same would fall within Class IV In the appellate order also, it has been mentioned that the lands are lying at the foot of the hills. The revisional authority has mentioned in the order that the lands in questionr are at the foot hills, that is, in valley, and are of capable of being cultivated.
3. In this connection, it will be necessary to refer to Sec.4 (f) of the Act. which relates to Class VI. and the same reads thus :
"4 (f), forty-five acres equivalent to 18 211 hectares of billy, sandy, forest land, even land perennially submerged under water or other kind of land none of which yield paddy, rabi or cash crops (hereinafter referred to as Class VI land ). " (Emphasis is added)From the aforesaid provision, it would appear that hilly lands, sandy lands, forest lands, even land perennially submerged under water or any other kind of land none of which Yield paddy, rabi or cash crops will come within Class VI On the findings recorded by the authorities, I have no difficulty in holding that the disputed lands fall within the expression hilly land and do not come in any other category of lands enumerated in this sub-section But. to bring the land wthin the ambit of Class VI two conditions have to be fulfiled-firstly, that the land falls within any of the types of land mentioned in this sub-section and secondly, the same does not yield paddy, rabi or cash crop. . My reasons for saying that these two pre-requi-sites are there for bringing the land within the lands in Class VI are enumeraated hereunder. The expression "none of which yield paddy, rabi or cash crops", in my view, cannotes in relation to all the five types of lands mentioned in this sub-section as referred to above because of the language used in the statute. It cannot be said that the second pre-requisite is in relation to "other kind of land" and not any of the other four types of lands. The expression "none of which yield paddy,. rabi or cash crops" is not conjunctive with only "any other kind of land", but the same corelates to the other four types of lands, as well. The expression used is "none of which yield paddy, rabi or cash crops. "
4. The expression "none" has been purposely used by the legislature to make the expression "does not yield paddy, rabi or cash crop" applicable to all the five types of lands mentioned in this sub-section. If the legislature would have intended to make the expression, "does not yield paddy, rabi or cash crops", applicable to only "any o
