Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.N.Sahay, Gurusharan Sharma and P.K.Deb JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Sharda Devi
Letter Patent Appeal No. 39 of 1988 ;
Decided On : MAY 01, 1996
AIR 1929 Mad 223, AIR 1933 Bomb 187 & AIR 1970 Mysore 139 Relied.
Land Acquisition Act 1894-Letters patent appeal is not barred u/s 54 of the Act (Para 46) civil appeal No. 1663 to 1668/82 decided on 30th July 1987 and AIR 1965 SC 1442 Dist.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, section 96 and Patna High Court Rules-Clause 10-Under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, appeal lies to the Division Bench against the judgment of Single Judge-Under clause 10 appeal also lies against enter locutory order-Appeal under Letters Patent is different from ordinary appeals u/s 96 of CPC. (Paras 48 & 49)
1972 (8) Bomb L.R. 433, AIR 1981 SC 1766 Relied ILR 13 Rang 457 over ruled.
Patna High Court Rules 1916, Rule 55(b)-Appeal is maintainable even If memo of appeal is not accompanied by copy of decree under appeal-In respect of Letters Patent appeal appellant is not required to file copy of decree along with memo of appeal.
(Paras 47 & 52)
AIR 1961 SC 832 and AIR 1981 SC 1786 Dist.
Land Acquisition Act 1894, section 18 & 30-Reference u/s 18 and one u/s 300-Distinction-Reference under section 30 is made solely on the question of title, while reference under section 18 is made on the application of the person interested for the compensation-within period of six weeks from the date of making award-Reference u/s 30 was made in view of observation of this court in a writ proceeding-It can not be said that reference u/s 30 was incompetent or time barred if reference made u/s 18-State can claim reference u/s 30 of the act by virtue of right which has arisen since the award was mad. AIR 1966 SC 237-Relied AIR 1955 SC Dist. (Paras 54 & 57)
Land Acquisition Act 1894, section 18 and 30-High Court quashing land encroachment proceeding in writ application without any finding regarding title but liberty was given to apply for reference u/s 18 or 30 which was exercised by appellant resulting the impugned award-It is also settled that land encroachment proceeding can not be resorted in cases of disputed question of title-Contempt application filed for non-implementation of order passed in writ application directing State to comply earlier order passed in writ application-Reference u/s 30 was made by State in view of observation of High Court-Observation of High Court in writ application and contempt application was of no consequence on proceeding u/s 30 of the act-It does not amount to resjudicata.
(Para 64, 66, 67 & 68)
Practice and Procedure -when a certified copy of a registered document is admitted in evidence and marked exhibits without objection in trial court. Its admissibility can not be challenged in appeal with the result that the original document is treated as proved.
(Para 71)
AIR 1943 PC 83, AIR 1954 SC 138, AIR 1972 SC 608 Ref.
Land Acquisition Act 1894, section 51A-Mere proof of a document is not sufficient to prove that actually either original settlee of the land or the respondents were in possession pursuant to the settlement deed and the sale deed at the time of vesting and the same needs mere evidence to validate the contents of the documents-Under section 51A registered certified copy of the document should be accepted as evidence, but this does not mean that documents are to be treated as of conclusive in nature. It is discretion of court to cast doubt on suspicious document for valid reasons. (Paras 70, 72 & 73)
Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, section 3-Publication of notification in Official Gazette is conclusive evidence of notice of declaration-There is no necessity of adducing additional evidence to prove the vesting in view of subsection 3 of section 3-Mutation allowed-Correction slip issued in favour of respondent on her application-also paid rent to the State from the date of vesting-Rent Receipt issued-These documents will operate as estoppel against the respondent. He can not be allowed to question the factum of vesting.
(Para 66 & 67)
Land Acquisition Act 1894-section 30 and Bihar Land-Reforms Act 1950, section 4-when question of title was to be adjudicated in a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before a Civil Court for determination of right title and interest provision of section is hardly of any relevance. (Paras 85 & 86)
R.N.Sahay, J.
1. This litigation has a chequered history and the facts of the case are rather involved and hence has to be narrated with sufficient clarity.
2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal arise out of a proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of a declaration dated 16.2.1982 (Ext. 7) 36.86 acres of land (out of 43.92 acres) bearing plot Nos. 4/5 and 10 appertaining to khata No. 151 of village Phusari in the district of Lohardaga, was acquired for a project called Phulsari Sapahi Nala". The lands of khata No. 151 under khewat No. 2/9 R.S. Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 10 were recorded under the revisional survey record of rights as gair majarua malik. But according to the appellant-State of Bihar, the aforesaid land vested in the State of Bihar as per notification dated 18.8.1995 (Ext. M). Therefore, the State claimed that it was entitled to get compensation for the lands acquired under Ext. 7.
3. The case of the respondent was that before vesting of Zamindari, the land had been settled by the ex-landlord in the name of one Deo Narayan Prasad by means of a registered deed of settlement (Ext. B) dated 24.4.54 and it was a raivat settlement. The respondent purchased the land from said Deo Narayan Prasad by registered deed of sale dated 7.9.1962 (Ext. C) Thereafter, she developed the land, cultivated it and raised crops. Her name mutated by Circle Officer in the revenue records and correction slip was issued to her (Ext. D). The State realised rent from her from the very date of vesting, i.e. from 1955 till 1975. The rent receipts issued to her are Ext.A-A/5. However, according to the case of the appellant, in the statutory return (Ext. 9, filed by the ex-landlord after vesting, this land was not shown to be setting with anybody rather shown as simply, gair majarua land. In the disputed land, erection of bandh was started in 1967 and completed in 1972. No objection was ever raised by the respondent that she was in possession of the land as occupancy raiyat.
4. The name of the respondent was recorded in the revenue records the Circle Officer vide mutation case No. 2/69 after she purchased the land from said Deo Narayan Prasad in 1962. The name of Deo Narayan was not mutated in the revenue-records. Respondent paid rent to the State rent from 1955 to 1975 for the first time after mutation in 1972 she was prevented from cultivating the land. But as stated earlier in 1967 itself the construction had started according to the case of the appellant and there was no resistance from the side of the respondent.
5. The case of the appellant-State is that transaction which is the foundation of the case of the respondent was a bogus transaction and did not confer any title on her. Her vendor was not in possession at the time of vesting of the land. If her vendor was not in actual possession, at the time of vesting, mere sale deed in favour of respondent did not confer any title on her.
6. The starting point of the real dispute was publication of notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of 36.86 acres of land out of 43.92 acres. The revenue authority refused to prepare the award in favour of the respondent because according to the State she has no right to claim compensation.
7. Respondent filed CWJC 147 of 1985 before this Court. The said application was disposed of with a direction to the State to prepare an award in the name of the respondent subject to any reference under Sec. 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the claim. Accordingly award was prepared in the name of the respondent. Ultimately the Collector referred the ( dispute to the Land Acquisition Judge, Ranchi under Sec. 30 of the Act for adjudication. Before the Special Subordinate Judge, oral and documentary evidence on behalf of both the parties were adduced. The following documents were filed on behalf of the State of Bihar:-
Ext. 1: To show that fishery settlement was made in favou
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
