SAYEEDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law falling for consideration in these four applications under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether the markets of the petitioners located at Patna, Arrah, Bhagalpur and Piro vested in the State of Bihar consequent upon the vesting of their estates in terms of notification issued under S.3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. C.W.J.C. No. 613 of 1968 relates to Patna Market at Patna, C.W.J.C. No. 45 of 1968 relates to Gudari Bazar in the town of Arrah, C.W.J.C. No. 387 of 1968 relates to Hassan Bazar to Piro and C.W.J.C. No. 330 of 1968 relates to Bazar known as Tilak Babu Ka Hat" in the town of Bhagalpur.

(2.) The markets mentioned above are the main marketing centres in the towns where they are located. By separate notices the proprietors were called upon to handover possession of the markets. The four writ applications will be disposed of by this common judgment. The vires of any provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has not been questioned. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners shortly put is that the properties of which possession is sought to be taken over by the State are buildings and not Bazar and buildings did not vest. It is not disputed that Hat and Bazar vested upon the issuance of notification under S.3 of the Act. But since there is no Bazar, but only buildings let out to several tenants, they did not vest. In C.W.J.C. No. 613 of 1968 which relates to Patna Market, the further plea is that it was a homestead at one point of time prior to the abolition of zamindari and, therefore, it was homestead on the day of issuance of notification. The submission is that being homestead, the properties must be deemed to have been settled back with the ex-proprietor in terms of S.5 of the Act.

(3.) Before embarking upon consideration of the submissions urged at the Bar, it would be appropriate to set out the relevant provisions of the Statute. The long title of the Act reads as follows :