STATE OF BIHAR Vs. AMITAVA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge II, Dhanbad, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for money to the extent of Rs. 1,75,888-11 P.

(2.) Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 10 carry on coal mining and colliery business under the name and style of Dighapatia Junior Raj Nadkhurkee Colliery and plaintiff No. 11 is the Managing Contractor of the aforesaid firm. The colliery in question was within the zamindari of Nawagarh Estate, which granted a lease to the Roys of Belrui. The Roys, in their turn, granted a sub-lease to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, after the vesting of the estate of Nawagarh under the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as B.L.R. Act) in the State of Bihar, the latter started demanding rent from the plaintiffs on the allegation that the right, title and interest of the Roys had also vested in the state of Bihar ; they demanded the rent with effect from the 29th of December, 1961, threatened action and also issued distress warrants in certificate sales, as a result of which the plaintiffs paid a total sum of Rs. 2,11,913.12 to the State of Bihar up to the year ending with the 31st March, 1954 ; they are making demands, it is said, with regard to the subsequent period also. Plaintiffs say that the State had no right to realise any money towards royalty from the plaintiffs up to the 26th of October, 1964, inasmuch as there was no privity of contract between the defendant State and the plaintiffs until that date. It is said that it was only on the 27th of October, 1964, that Section 10-A was inserted in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, according to which the interest of the top lessees also vested in the State of Bihar. Plaintiffs further say that it was under a mistake with regard to the date of vesting of the interest of the top lessees that they had paid the amount. It is admitted that the State is entitled to the demand with effect from the date of introduction of Section 10-A. In the view of the matter, the plaintiffs say that the State was entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 36,247.01 for the period beginning with 27th October, 1964, and ending on 31st March, 1965. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim a decree either for the entire amount paid by them or, in the alternative, for the amount after adjustment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 36,247.01 to which the State is legally entitled.

(3.) The case of the defendants is that Nawagarh Estate vested in the State of Bihar with effect from the 14th of November, 1959 together with all the rights which the original proprietors had. The Roys, who were the lessees, however, neglected to pay the royalty from the aforesaid date of vesting until the 28th of December, 1961, in spite of repeated demands. They however, requested the plaintiff (the sub-lessee) to pay the dues to the State Government on their behalf and the plaintiffs agreed. Plaintiffs further agreed to pay royalty according to the rate fixed by a notification under Section 30-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, which was published on the 28th of October, 1961, on their behalf as also on behalf of the Roys. The case that the plaintiffs paid under a mistake or coercion has been refuted It is said that the payment was voluntary in pursuance of the agreement between the State, the Roys and the plaintiffs. Their case further is that the plaintiffs paid the royalty from 14.11.51 to 28.12.61 on behalf of the Roys and that the royalty due from 29.12.61 to 31.12.62 not having been paid, as per agreement, by the plaintiffs, certificate oases were instituted against them. Then the plaintiffs paid the dues to the State at the rate fixed by the notification under Section 30-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, as per agreement aforesaid, on behalf of both, the head lessee and themselves, the sub-lessees, from 1st January, 1.963 to 31st March, 1964. In all, the plaintiffs, it is admitted, paid a total sum of Rs. 1,91,702.62 excluding the bank commission of Rs. 200.50 for the period beginning with the 29th of December, 1961, and ending on the 31st of March, 1964. Further, the defendants say that the plaintiffs as also the Roys were jointly and severally liable to pay to the State of Bihar royalty in view of Section 9(1) read with Section 3(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. Hence, the royalty from the 14th of November, 1951 to the 28th of December, 1961, had been paid by the plaintiffs both on their own behalf as also on behalf of the lessees (the Roys) and the royalty at the aforesaid rate from the 29th of December, 1961, to the 31st of March, 1964) was payable both by the top lessees and the sub-lessees, jointly and severally. It is said that the plaintiffs' case is not correct inasmuch as they were not subjected to any threat or duress; the entire amount paid was legally payable to the State by the plaintiffs on their own behalf as also on behalf of the Roys as per agreement aforesaid ; it was thus neither under mistaken view of law nor under coercion that the plaintiffs had made payments of the dues and for these reasons they are not entitled to a refund. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was no legal liability on the part of the plaintiffs to pay the royalty of rent until the date of insertion of Section 10-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. He further found that no agreement had been proved to show that the plaintiffs had undertaken to pay the rent and royalty which the Roys were liable to pay. Thirdly, he found that the plaintiffs either under wrong impression or duress had paid the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, he granted the alternative prayer of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit for the amount mentioned above after making a set off as asked for by the plaintiffs, of the dues of the State with effect from 27th October, 1964, to the 31st of March, 1965. The questions which thus arise are: