Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Pat) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I.A. Ansari and Ravi Ranjan, JJ.
Ramacast Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department and Ors. - Opposite Parties
Civil Review No. 410 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1436 of 1986
Decided On : 27-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv., Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv., Mr. Kundan Kumar, Adv., Mr. B.U. Barqi, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Adv. AAG 4., Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-4.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bona fide transferee cannot be restrained from enjoying or transferring the property purchased, especially after a final decision by the Collector that the transfers were valid. The court emphasized the need for a final decision by the Collector before imposing restraints on transferring the land.

Headnote:
Land Reforms - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Section 5(1)(iii), Section 10(1), Section 11(1), Section 15 - The judgment discusses the quashing of orders passed by the Additional Collector and the appellate order of the Collector, and the revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue. It also addresses the direction to conduct a fresh inquiry under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act and to publish a fresh draft statement as required under Section 10(1) of the Act. The court restrained the parties from transferring or disposing of any land declared surplus until final disposal of the matter. The judgment interprets the provisions of the Act regarding the transfer of land by the land-holder and the powers of the Collector to make inquiries and annul transfers. It also clarifies the restrictions on transferring land and the rights of bona fide transferees, emphasizing the need for a final decision by the Collector before imposing restraints.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Shree Hanuman Sugar Industries Ltd., filed a review application seeking clarification of the order restraining the transfer of land until final disposal of the matter. The petitioner had filed a return under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and was involved in a ceiling proceeding. The Additional Collector annulled several sale deeds executed by the petitioner's land-holder under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act. The petitioner sought clarification on the restriction imposed by the court on transferring the land until a final decision was made.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the ceiling proceeding was pending against the land-holder, but the petitioner had been declared a bona fide purchaser from the land-holder before the appointed date. The court held that the petitioner cannot be restrained from enjoying or transferring the property purchased, especially after the Additional Collector's decision that the transfers were valid. The court also emphasized that the restrainment was only until a final decision was taken by the Additional Collector under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the transfers made by the land-holder, the rights of the petitioner as a bona fide purchaser, and the interpretation of the court's restrainment order on transferring the land until final disposal of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, specifically Section 5(1)(iii), and the rights of bona fide transferees. The court emphasized the need for a final decision by the Additional Collector before imposing restraints on transferring the land.
Final Decision: The review application was disposed of with the observation that the pendency of the ceiling proceeding against the land-holder would not be an impediment in registering the land transferred by the petitioner. The court clarified that the State Government would be at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector and take remedial steps if it succeeded.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI RANJAN, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this review application seeking review of the order dated 29.01.1997 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1436 of 1986 and other analogus matters. The relevant/operative part of it reads as under:-

“30 In the result, the order of the Additional Collector dated 15.1.1995, the order of the Collector dated 17.6.1985 as well as the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 6.7.1985 as also the findings of the Additional Collector under section 5(1))(iii) of the Act regarding transfers of the land and the consequential notifications including under section 11(1) or 15 of the Act are hereby quashed. The Additional Collector, Ceiling, is directed to conduct a fresh inquiry under section 5(1)(iii) of the Amended Act and publish a fresh draft statement as required under section 10(1) of the Act.

As these cases have been disposed of in presence of the learned Advocates, therefore, in order to avoid unnecessary delay, all the concerned parties are directed to appear in the Court of Additional Collector, Motihari, East Champaran (respondent no. 4) or the Additional Collector, Ceiling, as the case may be, on or before 23rd of February, 1997 so that a firm date can be fixed for hearing and inquiry etc.

But until, final disposal of the matter, all the parties to the proceeding are refrained from transferring or disposing of any land, which was declared surplus by virtue of the impugned orders.”

2. The case of writ petitioner is as follows:-

Shree Hanuman Sugar Industries Ltd., the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1436 of 1986, being land-holder of land measuring about 1467 acres of different categories, filed a return after commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) before the ceiling authorities. Verification was carried out under Rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 but without proper notice to the parties, therefore, by order dated 30th September, 1976 passed in CWJC No. 1312 of 1985, the ceiling authority was directed to make fresh verification in the presence of the petitioner after granting reasonable opportunity to the parties, as required under Section 9 of the Act. After verification, in terms of the direction of the High Court, the Additional Collector also conducted inquiry under Section 5 (1)(iii) of the Act regarding several sale deeds executed by the original land holder. The proceeding also included two sale deeds executed by the land-holder in favour of this petitioner on 07.09.1970, i.e., just two days before the appointed day fixed under Section 2(a) of the Act, i.e., the 9th day of September, 1970. The land-holder was also pursuing an exemption under Section 29 of the Act on several grounds. However, the Additional Collector, on 15.01.1983, annulled several sale deeds executed by Shree Hanuman Sugar Industries Ltd., the land-holder, including the two in favour of the petitioner, under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act.

3. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, which was dismissed by order dated 17.06.1985.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner and others filed revision before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna which was also dismissed by order dated 06.07.1985.

5. The land-holder, being aggrieved by the order which was passed against it, refusing exemption under Section 29 of the Act, preferred C.W.J.C. No. 2976 of 1985 and several other aggrieved persons, including the petitioner, also filed their respective writ petitions against the orders passed against them. This petitioner’s writ petition was C.W.J.C. No. 1436 of 1986.

6. All the writ petitions were tagged and heard together by a Division Bench of this Court and were disposed of by the order under review, quashing the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Pat) 707

Cases Referred (1)