SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Pat) 16

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.A.Sharma and A.K.Prasad JJ.
Mohd.Raza
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1959 of 1991 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 12, 1999

The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus) Act, 1961 is a self-contained Code regarding ceiling area and related matters. The consequential notification under Sec. 15 is merely consequential to the substantive order declaring the land as surplus.

Headnote:

LAND REFORMS - CEILING AREA - WAKF PROPERTY - APPLICABILITY OF ACT - BIHAR LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OF CEILING AREA AND ACQUISITION OF SURPLUS) ACT, 1961 - SECS. 2(EE), 4(A), 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 27, 29, 30.

Fact of the Case:

A Wakf made a Wakful Alal Aulad (Wakf) in respect of his immovable properties. In 1961, the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus) Act, 1961 (the Act) was enacted, fixing a ceiling area for agricultural land. A Land Ceiling Case was started in respect of the Wakf's land, and about 123 acres were declared surplus. A notification under Sec. 15 of the Act acquiring the surplus land was published in 1978. The Wakf did not challenge the orders or the notification. In 1991, a writ petition was filed challenging the notification and the letters issued by the Law Department and the Deputy Commissioner.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Act is a self-contained Code regarding ceiling area and related matters. The substantive order declaring the land as surplus was not challenged, and the consequential notification under Sec. 15 could not be quashed without setting aside the substantive order. The writ petition was also dismissed due to excessive delay and laches.

Issues: 1. Whether the Act is applicable to Wakf property. 2. Whether the consequential notification under Sec. 15 can be challenged without setting aside the substantive order declaring the land as surplus. 3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable considering the delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is a self-contained Code regarding ceiling area and related matters. It has fixed a ceiling area for a family and laid down a detailed procedure for determining the surplus land. 2. The consequential notification under Sec. 15 is merely consequential to the substantive order declaring the land as surplus. If the substantive order is set aside, the consequential notification falls automatically. However, the converse is not true. 3. The writ petition was filed 13 years after the publication of the notification under Sec. 15, without any plausible explanation for the delay. The substantive order declaring the land as surplus was not challenged before the appellate authority or the High Court.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

Judgment

R.A.Sharma, J.

1. Late Md. Raza made a Wakful Alal Aulad (hereinafter referred to as the Wakf) in respect of his immovable properties of several villages by a registered deed dated 12.4.1939. In 1961, Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted by the State of Bihar fixing ceiling area of the agricultural land for a family. A Land Ceiling Case No. 384 of 1973 was started in respect of the land of the wakf under the Act and a notice was published and served on Mutawalli of the Wakf calling upon him to file the return. The Wakf through the Mutawalli filed the return/representation, pursuant to the said notice. After considering the representation filed on behalf of the Wakf and the other materials on the record about 123 acres of the agricultural land of the Wakf were declared surplus by the competent authority. Accordingly, a notification under Sec. 15 of the Act acquiring the surplus land of the Wakf was published in the Gazette dated 1.8.1978.

2. The orders passed under the Act declaring some of the land of the Wakf as surplus and the Notification under Sec. 15 of the Act acquiring the said surplus land were not challenged by or on behalf of the Wakf and they became final. In 1980, petitioner No. 2 became Mutawalli. In 1986, on a representation made by the Sunni Wakf Board, the Deputy Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Bihar, sent a letter dated 27.11.1996 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, asking him to stay the ceiling proceedings against the Wakf property until further orders. By letter dated 7.8.1990 issued by the Additional Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Bihar, the Ceiling authorities were informed that nothing can be done in the matter because the Act is applicable to the Wakf land also. After receipt of the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 1.1.1991 directed distribution of the surplus land of the Wakf with the observation that the same could not be distributed earlier in view of the conspiracy involving the Law Department of the State. The surplus land of the Wakf was accordingly distributed to the landless persons of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, etc. on 16.9.1991.

3. After the surplus land of the Wakf was distributed to the landless persons, this writ petition was filed on 17.9.1991 in this Court challenging the Notification dated 1.8.1978 under Sec. 15 of the Act. The afore^ said letter dated 1.8.1978 issued by the Additional Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh saying that the provisions of the Act will apply in relation to the Wakf land also as well as the letter dated 1.1.1991 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, directed distribution of the surplus land of the wakf have also been challenged. The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit and the petitioners have filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a Wakf under the Mohammedan Law is not like an ordinary trust, to which the provisions of the Act can be applied and, therefore, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to declare the Wakfs land as surplus under the Act. The submission of the learned J.C. to the Government Advocate on the other hand is two fold, i.e., (i) Wakf is a Trust to which the Act is applicable, and (ii) the Personal Law is neither relevant nor is applicable for determining the ceiling area under the Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the definition of the word "family" as contained in Sec. 2(ee) of the Act, which is reproduced below:

2(ee)-- "family" means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor children; Explanation I--In this clause, the word person includes any company, institution, trust, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not;

Explanation II--The Personal Law



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top