PREM MANJARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Maharani Prem Manjari Devi has moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash certain proceedings instituted by the Additional Collector of Ranchi under Section 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act.

(2.) The petitioner claims that on 11-6-1951 her husband, the Maharaja of Chotanagpore, executed a settlement of trust granting beneficiary interest in seventy-one villages in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the Maharaja executed the document since there was a tradition and family custom of giving Sindurtari at the time of the marriage. The case of the petitioner is that the transaction is bona fide. Previous to the execution of the deed the Bihar Land Reforms Act (30 of 1950) had been enacted by the State Legislature and the Act received the assent of the President on 11-9-1950. Acting under the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Act the Additional Collector of Ranchi issued a notice on 20-9-1952 to the petitioner asking her to show cause why the settlement should not be set aside on the ground that it was created with the object of defeating the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioner showed cause before the Additional Collector and in the course of the enquiry the petitioner's husband, Maharaja of Chotanagpur, was examined as a witness for the State of Bihar. The Maharaja was examined on 19-11-1952 by the Government Pleader Mr. P. K. Banerji, who applied on the same day to the Additional Collector for cross-examining the witness on the ground that he was concealing the truth. The petition was allowed by the Additional Collector on the ground that the witness appeared to him highly reluctant to disclose the true state of affairs, Aggrieved by this order the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner on 10-12-1952 stating that the enquiry should be transferred from the file of the Additional Collector for the reason that he had expressed his opinion as to the character of the Maharaja. The petitioner also alleged that Mr. Banerji, Government Pleader, had advised the Maharaja in the matter of the execution of the trust deed and so he should not be permitted to appear in this enquiry on behalf of the State. The application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi on the ground that he had no power under the statute to transfer the enquiry from the file of the Additional Collector of Ranchi. As regards the appearance of the Government Pleader, Mr. Banerji, the Deputy Commissioner said that there was no bar to his appearing on behalf of the Government. The petitioner has prayed to this Court for quashing the proceedings under Section 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act, firstly, on the ground that there was a violation of natural justice, and, secondly, on the ground that the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Act were constitutionally invalid. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 4(h) violate the constitutional safeguard under Article 31 of the Constitution as the legislation is not for a public purpose and there is no provision as regards payment of compensation.

(3.) In my opinion there is no merit in the argument advanced -on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings before the Additional Collector were illegal and void because there was a violation of natural justice. The allegation made by the petitioner is that the Additional Collector permitted the Government Pleader, Mr. Ranerji, to cross-examine the Maharaja on the ground that he was not disclosing the true state of affairs. It is also alleged that the Additional Collector ought not to have permitted the Government Pleader, Mr. Banerji, to appear for the State of Bihar for the reason that Mr. Banerji had taken part in drafting the trust deed for the Maharaja. In my opinion there is no point in either of these objec-tions. The Additional Collector has certainly the authority to say that a particular witness is not telling the truth and it is a matter of discretion whether he should in such a case permit Mr. Banerji to cross-examine the witness. It is highly far-fetched to argue that this circumstance necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Additional Collector has a biased outlook. As regards the appearance of Mr. Banerji the Deputy Commissioner says that he was satisfied that apart from advising the Maharaja in executing the trust deed Mr. Banerji did nothing else. The Deputy Commissioner further said that if Mr. Banerji did not like to appear in the case he would not press him to do so and the State Government would engage another lawyer for conducting the enquiry. In my opinion there is nothing to show that there has been violation of natural justice in this case and the argument of Mr. B. C. Ghosh on this point must fail.