JULIUS ORAON Vs. SANIARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these suits, which have been heard together, a common question of law arises for determination namely, whether the provisions of the Ranchi District Aboriginal Raiyats Agricultural Lands Restoration Act (Bihar Act I) of 1948) are ultra vires the Government of India Act, 1935, and whether the orders of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 4 of that Act, effecting restoration of the holding sold for arrears of rent are also consequently illegal and ultra vires.

(2.) In Title Suit No. 130 of 1953, the plaintiff, Julius Oraon, has alleged that the disputed land was comprised in the occupancy holding of three brothers, Bhandari Charwa, Chandru and Bandhu, but after the revisional survey there was a partition between the three brothers. It appears that there Was default in the payment of rent on the part of the tenants and thereafter the landlord, the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur, obtained a decree against them for arrears of rent in Rent Suit No. 593 of 1938-39 and in execution of that decree, in Execution Case No. 739 of 1939-40 the landlord purchased the holding and obtained delivery of possession through court by ejecting the aforesaid tenants. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that on 3-8-1943, there was a raiyati settlement by the landlord with the plaintiffs of the disputed holding and the plaintiff was placed in possession thereof. On 4-2-1948, the Bihar Legislature enacted the impugned Act, namely, the Ranchi District Aboriginal Raiyats' Agricultural Lands Restoration Act (Bihar Act II of 1948). Section 4 of this Act is important and it is necessary to reproduce it in full:

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants, Musammat Saniaro Uraon, and also by the State of Bihar, who filed separate written statements. The following issues were framed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ranchi :