BOKARO AND RAMGUR LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We consider that this petition under Art.32 of the Constitution is entirely devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed as misconceived as it does not involve any question of the infringement of any fundamental right.

(2.) The petition is substantially for the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the Collector of Hazaribagh not to proceed with an enquiry pending before him under S.4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings. The property regarding which a contention is raised that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of the Constitution are alleged to have been infringed is a plot of land within the municipal limits of Hazaribagh in Bihar together with certain buildings and structures thereon. The property originally belonged to the Ramgarh Raj. There is a dispute as to the manner in which this property was being enjoyed by the then proprietors and so we shall at this stage refrain from saying anything about it. On January 16, 1948 the Raja of Ramgarh granted a lease of this property in favour of his younger brother Basant Narain - for a term of 99 years. On April 7,1949 the Raja settled his reversionary interest in the property for the benefit of a Trust under a registered deed of settlement. The estate of Ramgarh was notified under S. 3(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1950) for being taken over by the Government of Bihar and in consequence the estate statutorily vested in the State on and from November 3 1951. Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act enacts:

(3.) On November 13, 1959 the Collector passed an order cancelling the lease. The petitioner who laid claim to a title to the property under the assignment in its favour dated July 3, 1959, applied to the Collector to set aside his order bath on the merits and also on the ground that the order of November 13, 1959 had been passed to its prejudice without giving it an opportunity to make its objections even though by that date it had obtained title to the property and therefore a locus standi to be heard. We are not now concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the contention raised by the petitioner, because the State of Bihar set aside the order of the Collector and directed a re-enquiry and in this re-enquiry the petitioner filed a petition before the Collector on August 9, 1960 setting out its case.