Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RAY, J.
Karanpura Development Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Decided On : Dec 03, 1963
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT - VESTING OF ESTATE - NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY - ADMISSION OF FACT - ESTOPPEL - INTERPLEADER SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY - COSTS AND COMMISSION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Karanpura Development Co. Ltd., filed an interpleader suit against the State of Bihar and various other defendants to determine who was entitled to the rent and royalty for the period from May 5, 1953 to May 4, 1959, in respect of certain coal leases. The plaintiff had granted several leases in respect of coal in the Ramgarh Estate to the defendant no. 2, who in turn had purported to transfer or assign its right, title, and interest under 29 of such leases to the defendants nos. 3 to 11. The State of Bihar claimed that the Ramgarh Estate had vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and notifications thereunder, and that it was entitled to all the rents and royalties payable in respect of the leases. The defendants nos. 3 to 11 claimed that they were entitled to the rents and royalties under the conveyances executed by the defendant no. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State of Bihar was entitled to the rents and royalties payable in respect of the leases from the date of vesting of the Ramgarh Estate in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The court found that the notifications issued by the State of Bihar under sec. 3 of the Act were valid and binding on all parties to the suit. The court also held that the defendants nos. 3 to 11 were estopped from denying the title of the State of Bihar to the Ramgarh Estate, as they had admitted in their additional written statements that the estate had vested in the State by virtue of the notifications dated June 7, 1952 and September 11, 1952.
Issues: 1. Did Touzi no. 28 vest in the State of Bihar? If so, on what date and under what notification? 2. Are the notifications of the State of Bihar dated November 3, 1951 valid and binding on the parties to the suit? 3. Whether the rents and royalties held in deposit in respect of the period May 5, 1953 to May 4, 1959 are payable to defendant no. 1 or to defendants nos. 2 to 11?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State of Bihar was entitled to the rents and royalties payable in respect of the leases from the date of vesting of the Ramgarh Estate in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The court found that the notifications issued by the State of Bihar under sec. 3 of the Act were valid and binding on all parties to the suit. The court also held that the defendants nos. 3 to 11 were estopped from denying the title of the State of Bihar to the Ramgarh Estate, as they had admitted in their additional written statements that the estate had vested in the State by virtue of the notifications dated June 7, 1952 and September 11, 1952.
Final Decision: The court answered the issues as follows: 1-Yes. 2-yes, 3-payable to the State of Bihar. The court also granted costs and commission to the plaintiff and an injunction in terms of prayer 2 of the plaint. The State of Bihar was entitled to costs against losing defendants nos. 2 to 11.
1. This suit was instituted by Karanpura Development Co. Ltd., against the State of Bihar and various other defendants requiring the defendants to interplead concerning their respective claims to the sum of Rs. 21,03,293. 8 np. being rent and royalty for the period from May 5, 1953 to May 4, 1959. The other prayer is that upon delivering such rent and royalty in the aforesaid sum to such person or persons as the court may appoint less the costs of the plaintiff in the suit and less commission, the plaintiff be discharged from all liabilities to the defendants and each of them in respect of the rents and royalties payable by the plaintiff in respect of the leases.
2. The plaintiff alleges in the plaint that at all material times Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh was the proprietor of Ramgarh Estate being Touzi No. 28 of the Collectorate of Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar till the Touzi vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and notifications thereunder. The plaintiff further alleges in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the Raja Bahadur granted several leases in respect of coal in the said Touzi in favour of the plaintiff on various dates. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleges that by a purported conveyance dated January 4, 1949 executed by the Raja Bahadur in favour of the defendant no. 2, the Raja Bahadur purported to transfer or assign his right, title and interest under 22 Coal Mining Leases all dated June 17, 1948, out of the leases referred to in paragraph 2 in favour of the defendant no. 2. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is alleged that out of 31 Coal Mining Leases purported to be assigned to the defendant no. 2 by the Raja Bahadur as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint by several purported conveyances the defendant no. 2 purported to transfer to different companies being defendants nos. 3 to 11, its right, title and interest under 29 of such leases. In paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff did not attorney tenancy to the defendants nos. 3 to 11 or any of them. The plaintiff further alleges that the said defendants are claiming from the plaintiff the rents and royalties payable under the leases so purported to have been assigned or transferred.
In paragraph 5 of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that by notifications of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 published in the Bihar gazette of November 3, 1951, June 7, 1952 and September 17, 1952, it was declared that the respective estates of the Raja Bahadur, the defendant no. 2 and the defendants mos. 3 to 11 in the said Touzi no. 28 and in all the leases referred to above had with effect from the dates of such publication passed to and become vested in the defendant No. 1, State of Bihar under the provisions of the said Act. The plaintiff alleges in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the defendant State of Bihar is claiming that Touzi no. 28 is vested in the State of Bihar as from November 3, 1951 and that as from the said day it is exclusively entitled to all the rents and royalties payable in respect of all leases referred to in paragraph 2 of the plaint.
3. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is alleged that a suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh by the Raja Bahadur against the State of Bihar being Title Suit No. 24 of 1953. Judgment was passed in the said suit on July 18, 1958 declaring that the said Touzi vested in the State of Bihar on and from January 26, 1955. The State of Bihar preferred an appeal from the said judgment. The plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff was not a party to the said suit.
4. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendant State of Bihar instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh being Title Suit no. 53/8 of 1954/1956 against inter alia the defendants nos. 2 to 11 claiming declaration that the conveyances mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint were sham and colourable and that no title passed to the transferees under
AI
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
