STATE OF BIHAR Vs. THAKUR MANMOHAN DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two miscellaneous appeals have been preferred lay the State of Bihar and others from the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar passed on 1-3-1961 and 5-8-1961 in Title Suits 115 and 150 of 1960 respectively filed by the plaintiff respondent. By the said orders, the learned Subordinate Judge has restrained the defendants appellants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff respondent over the suit properties.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent was the holder of a ghatwali tenure commonly known as the Rohini Ghatwali situate within the sub-division of Deoghar in the district of the, Santhal Parganas. fn the year 1950 was enacted the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1350) hereinafter called the Act, which came into force on September 25, 1950. Thereupon the respondent filed Title Suit No. 42 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Deoghar, challenging the Act as being unconstitutional and claiming in the alternative that the Act could not acquire his ghatwali tenure and, if it purported to do so, it was ultra vires in its application to such ghatwalis. The said suit was decided against respondent by the learned Subordinate Judge and his decision was affirmed in appeal by the High Court on the 10th of December, 1954, vide T.M. Deo v. State, ILR 34 Pat 57. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. By its decision, dated 19-9-1960, vide Manmohan Deo v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 189, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff and maintained the dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the said litigation, the plaintiff was appointed receiver of the estate, namely, the whole of the Rohini Ghatwali tenure lay an order of the Supreme Court made on 23-12-1954. It may also be noted here that the State Government had issued notification on the 22nd of May, 1952, under the Act, declaring that the estate of the plaintiff did pass to and become vested in, the State of Bihar.

(3.) The plaintiff respondent filed Title Suit No. 115 of 1960 on 19-9-1960, the very day his appeal arising out of Title Suit No. 42 of 1950 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In this suit the plaintiff claims that certain Basauri Mahats known as Deoghar Jasidih Basauri Mahals in the towns of Deogar and Jasidih consisting of Basauri lands and holdings in the mauzas noted In the schedule appended to the plaint, which mauzas admittedly formed part of, and were comprised in, the Rohini Ghatwali tenure, are his personal properties and are not part of any estate or tenure within the meaning of the Act. The Act does not purport to vest the Basouri Mahals in the towns of Deoghar and Jasidih'. The said claim is founded chiefly by pleading in paragraph 4 of the plaint--