Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. Das Gupta, S. C. Lahiri, H. K. Bose
MAHARAJA PROBIRENDRA MOHUN TAGORE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent
Suit 4033 Of 1953
Decided On : AUGUST 12, 1959
BENGAL SETTLED ESTATES ACT, 1904 - BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR LAND - LETTERS PATENT, CLAUSE 12 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Maharaja Probirendra Mohan Tagore, filed a suit for a declaration that his right, title, and interest in the settled estate created under the Bengal Settled Estates Act, 1904, were not affected by the notification issued by the Bihar Government under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal were impleaded as defendants.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, is a valid legislation and is not a colourable piece of legislation. 2. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, affects the title of the plaintiff created by the deed of family settlement under the provisions of the Bengal Settled Estates Act, 1904. 3. The suit is a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 4. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in the exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Does the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 at all affect estates under the Bengal Settled Estates Act of 1904 but lying partly within the State of Bihar? 2. Are the notifications and notices thereunder mentioned in the plaint valid? 3. Has the estate in suit vested in the State of Bihar by virtue of the notifications dated the 30th October, 1952? 4. Has the Court jurisdiction to try the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, is a valid legislation and is not a colourable piece of legislation. The object of the Act is to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors or tenure-holders in land and of mortgagees or lessees of such interest including interest in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals. This object is sought to be achieved by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act, which deals with the consequences of the vesting of an estate in the state, prevails notwithstanding the provisions of any other law or contract to the contrary. The effect of this non-obstante clause is to supersede the provisions of any other law to the contrary. 2. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, affects the title of the plaintiff created by the deed of family settlement under the provisions of the Bengal Settled Estates Act, 1904. The Bengal Settled Estates Act applies by its own force to the State of Bihar because sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of that Act provides that it extends to the State of West Bengal and Bihar and to that part of the State of Orissa which on the 9th day of March, 1904 was included in Bengal. The Bihar Legislature was accordingly competent to modify or amend such portions of the Bengal Settled Estates Act as it thought fit. 3. The suit is a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The primary object of the suit is to obtain a permanent injunction restraining the State of Bihar from giving effect to the notification dated October 30, 1952 on a declaration that the said notification did not in any way affect the plaintiff's right, title and interest in the properties comprised in the notification. 4. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in the exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The land which constitutes the subject-matter of this suit is wholly outside the local limits of the Original Jurisdiction of this Court.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 both on the merits and on preliminary ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
( 1 ) THIS suit has been placed before the Special Bench under a report of P. B. Mukharji J. under Chapter V, Rules 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules as it involves many important questions of far reaching consequence.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff Maharaja Probirendra Mohan Tagore asks for a declaration that his right, title and interest in the settled estate created under a deed of family settlement dated November 18, 1904 under the Bengal Settled Estates Act, 1904 (Bengal Act III of 1904), have not been affected by notification No. 310 L. R. /zam dated the 30th October, 1952, issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950) and for a further declaration that the said notification is invalid and inoperative and does not bind the plaintiff and for certain other incidental relicts.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case as made in the plaint is that on the 18th November, 1906, his paternal grandfather Sir Jotindra Mohun Tagore executed a deed of family settlement in respect of immovable properties situate within and outside the jurisdiction of this Court; that by this deed of family settlement Maharaja Sir Jotindra Mohun Tagore was the first tenant for life, his son Maharaja Sir Prodyot Kumar Tagore was the second tenant for life and the plaintiff the third tenant for life; that the said deed of family settlement was approved by the then Government of Bengal and is still valid and subsisting. The State of Bihar purporting to act under a colourable piece of legislation called the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950, threatens to take away the plaintiff's properties constituting a part of the aforesaid estate, by a notification dated the 30th October, 1952 published in Bihar Gazette Extraordinary, on the 26th November, 1952. The plaintiff claims that the State of Bihar has no authority to take away the plaintiff's interest in the said estate. The State of Bihar has been impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit, the State of West Bengal has also been impleaded as the second defendant to enable the court to "effectually and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit".
( 4 ) THE suit was contested by two sets of written statements filed by the State of Bihar and also the State of West Bengal, In its written statement the State of Bihar pleaded that the Bihar Land Reforms Act is not a colourable piece of legislation and that as a result of the notification issued under Section 3 (1) of that Act the properties mentioned in the notification vested in the State of Bihar. It further pleaded that as a result of the notification the plaintiff has no longer any right in the properties comprised in the notification and that he has only the right to receive compensation according to the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950. An additional plea was also raised about the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit on the ground that the suit involves questions of title to lands which are not only wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Court but also wholly outside the State of West Bengal. By a separate written statement the State of West Bengal pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action against it and that its presence was not necessary for the adjudication of the dispute regarding lands in Bihar. It appears from the report of P. B. Mukharji, J. , that upon the aforesaid pleadings by consent of counsel, the Court settled the following issues :"1. Has the Court jurisdiction to try the suit? 2. Does the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 at all affect estates under the Bengal Settled Estates Act of 1904 but lying partly within the State of Bihar? 3. Are the notifications and notices thereunder mentioned in the plaint valid? 4. Has the estate in suit vested in the State of Bihar by virtue of the notifications dated the 30th October, 1952?"
( 5 ) AT the trial no evidence was adduced by the parties and all the facts
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
