NAND KISHORE SINGH Vs. SATYA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 and 2 against the decision of the lower appellate court in a suit for declaration that certain orders passed in a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are without jurisdiction and for a decree for recovery of possession of the land in dispute with mesne profits. The State of Bihar and the Subdivisional Officer, Aurangabad, who had passed the orders in the impugned proceedings were added as defendants 3 and 4 after filing of the suit, but were later expunged. Two questions have been raised in this appeal, namely, (1) whether the suit is at all maintainable; and (2) whether the State of Bihar and the Subdivisional Officer, Aurangabad are necessary parties to the suit, in whose absence the suit cannot be decreed. A learned single Judge, who heard the second appeal earlier has referred it to a Division Bench.

(2.) In the month of Sept., 1964 a sale deed was executed in regard to the suit land, fully detailed in the plaint, by Juga Singh, the defendant No. 5, in favour of the plaintiff. On the 30th of Sept., 1964 the defendant appellants filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Act which was registered as Case No. 16 of 1964-65 by the authority, i. e., the Sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad, who is the Collector for the purposes of the Act. The defendants claimed that they are neighbouring raiyats and are entitled to pre-empt. The Subdivisional Officer entertained the application and passed an order on that very day directing the deposit of the consideration money along with the additional amount of ten per cent. The claim was contested by the present plaintiff, but ultimately the prayer for pre-emption was allowed on the 6th of Dec., 1965. An appeal provided under the Act was filed and was also dismissed on the 3rd of Aug., 1966. On the 18th of Aug., 1966 the present suit was filed and several grounds were taken in the plaint. Subsequently an amendment of the plaint was allowed whereby it was pleaded that since the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was registered on the 2nd of Dec., 1964, the proceeding in Case No. 16 of 1964-65, having been started on the 30th of Sept., 1964 was without jurisdiction.

(3.) The suit was defended by the appellants inter alia, on the grounds that the State of Bihar and the Subdivisional Officer, Aurangabad. who is Collector under the Act and had passed the order dated the 6th of Dec., 1965 in the proceeding were necessary parties; and, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.