1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1250 OF 2008

CHHEDI LAL YADAV & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HARI KISHORE YADAV (D) THR.

LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1.

This appeal is preferred against the

judgment of the Division Bench of the High

Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the High

Court had reversed the order passed by the

Additional Collector, Supaul directing

restoration of possession of the disputed

land admeasuring about 10.47 acres to the

appellants under the provisions of the Bihar

Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats),

Act, 1951 (for short, “the Act”).

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the

parties at length. Having done so, we are

Digitally signed by

CHARANJEET KAUR

Date: 2017.04.21

17:12:21 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

inclined to dispose of the appeal on the

ground of unreasonable delay in applying for

restoration of the land. The few dates

necessary for deciding this issue are as

follows :

3.

On 13.08.1942, the suit land was sold

in auction in execution of the Rent Decree.

The suit land was then put in possession of

the appellant(s)' predecessor. In execution,

the land was purchased by one Babu Md. Abdus

Samad. Thereafter, the land appeared to have

changed hands four times.

4.

In 1951, the State of Bihar enacted the

Act. The Act provided for restoration of

certain lands to farmers, i.e., raiyats,

which were sold for arrears of rent or from

which they were ejected for arrears of rent

between 1^st day of January 1939, and 31^st day

of December, 1950. This was operational due

to floods in the Kosi River which made

3

agricultural operations impossible.

5.

The appellants did not take any steps

for restoration of the land till 04.05.1975.

On that date one Gonar Yadav, son of recorded

tenant Chanchal Yadav filed a petition for

restoration of the disputed land under

Section 3 of the Act. Eventually, after an

earlier remand, when the matter was pending

in appeal, being Appeal No. 540 of 1978-79,

it was dismissed in default on 07.09.1980.

It was again restored on 23.12.1980; but

again dismissed for default on 23.03.1983.

6.

An application for restoration was

moved after 16 years on 09.08.1999 and was

allowed without notice to the respondents.

Eventually, the Additional Collector on

27.12.2000, allowed the restoration of the

disputed land in favour of the appellants.

7.

A Writ Petition filed by the

4

respondents was dismissed by the learned

Single Judge on 25.03.2004. A Letters

Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents

was, however, allowed. That judgment is in

appeal before us at the instance of the

appellants who had been denied

the

restoration of land. It is obvious from the

periods of time mentioned above that even

after the Act was passed in 1951, the

appellants filed a petition for restoration

of the disputed land on 04.05.1975, i.e.,

after a period of about 24 years.

Thereafter, when the appeal filed by them was

dismissed on 23.08.1983, the appellants

applied for restoration on 09.08.1999 after a

period of 16 years of such dismissal.

8.

We find that there is inordinate,

unexplained and unjustified delay on the part

of the appellants in firstly, making an

application for restoration of land after a

5

period of 24 years after such a right is said

to have accrued to them and, then in making

an application for restoration after a period

of 16 years when the matter was dismissed in

default.

9.

Learned counsel appearing for the

appellants vehemently submitted that the

delay must be overlooked because the Act is

a beneficial piece of legislation intended to

bring relief to farmers who had been

dispossessed during the proscribed period.

The reliance was placed on a ju