BUDDINATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Banaili Raj was the proprietor of touzi No. 503 village Gorhimal and Touzi No. 372 of village Routara in Godda town. The land of Khata No. 74 of Plot No. 6 of village Gorhimal along with other lands of the village belonged to one Gajadhar Prasad and others. The proprietors of Banaili Raj acquired them under Section 25A of Regulation II of 1872 in case No. 1/6 of 1918-19 for erection of buildings and extension of cutchery compound. The land of Plot No. 6 of Village Gorhimal appertaining to Touzi No. 503 and of Plot No. 360 appertaining to Touzi No. 372 of village Routara was the basauri land of the Raj. In partition of the estate, the aforesaid mahal of Gorhimal and Routara fell in the share of the petitioners who were proprietors of Banaili Raj to the extent of three annas share and thereafter the petitioners came in exclusive possession of the aforesaid lands of Plots Nos. 6 and 360. The estate of the petitioners completely vested by the 30th January, 1954 in the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar also took possession of the cutchery and the land appertaining to it and the petitioners remained in possession of the remaining portions of Plots Nos. 6 and 360. According to the case of the petitioners, the rent of the aforesaid land has been settled by the State of Bihar and the petitioners have been paying rent of the same to the State.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioners, they are basauri tenants of the aforesaid land under Sections 5 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioners, therefore, had full right to make transfer of the aforesaid land as basauri tenants. In the alternative, they asserted that even if they be deemed to be the raiyats in respect of the aforesaid land under Section 6 of the Land Reforms Act, they were not the raiyats within the meaning of the Santhal Parganas Tenany Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 20 of the Act, putting restrictions on the powers of transfer of the land of a raiyat, could not be applied in the case of the petitioners. The Banaili Raj had settled a portion of the aforesaid land acquired under Regulation II of 1872 with various tenants for homestead purposes who had constructed their buildings over the same. After the vesting, the petitioners sold a portion of the land by a registered kebala at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per katha sometime in the year 1966. Thereafter, they sold some more portions of the land but the Registration Officer, Godda, refused to register the documents at the instance of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Godda, on the ground that Section 20 of the Act applied in the case of the transfer made by the petitioners also. The matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner by the Registration Officer, Godda, at the instance of the petitioners but it has not been decided as yet. The petitioners have characterised this action of the Registration Officer as mala fide because the State of Bihar wanted to acquire the land and did not like to pay proper compensation. According to the petitioners, the valuation of the land would not be less than Rs. 2,500 per katha. They referred to certain correspondence between the local authorities and the Commissioner, Bhagalpur, in which it was mentioned that the land of the petitioners and others measuring 9.32 acres should be acquired for the purposes of shifting the Godda Hatia from the present site and approximate compensation would be paid at Rs. 8,550 i. e. at the rate of less than Rs. 1,000 per acre. The residents of Godda town filed objection to the shifting of the Hatia but it was ignored. The petitioners came to know that the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division recommended to the Government for acquiring the said land at the aforesaid rate. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Godda, filed an application along with the Kanungo's report for the acquisition of the land mentioned in the report before the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda, who started a proceeding for acquisition of the land measuring 8.62 acres or mouza Gorhi-mal and 0.70 acre of mouza Routara which include 3.45 acres of aforesaid plot No. 6 of village Gorhimal and 0.70 acre of plot No. 360 of village Routara belonging to the petitioners, on the 25th September, 1967 (Annexure F), being Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1967-68 under Section 53 (1) (a) of the Act for shifting of Godda Hat for better management and increased income and notice was ordered to be issued to the raiyats of the aforesaid two villages and to the tenants whose lands were going to be acquired for the purpose of filing objections. The petitioners having learnt about the land acquisition proceedings and the previous correspondence for the acquisition of the land have filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the land acquisition proceeding (annexure F) and restraining the opposite party from acquiring the lands of the petitioners after declaring that the lands of the petitioners are homestead and not raiyati lands, they are liable to be sold and the opposite party have no right to withhold and refuse registration of transfer deeds etc.

(3.) The State of Bihar has shown cause in which it has been asserted that the status of the petitioners in respect of the disputed lands is that of raiyats under the Act and, therefore, they have got no right to sell under Section 20 of the Act. In such circumstances, the lands of the petitioners could be acquired under the provisions of Section 53 (1) (a) of the Act on payment of proper compensation which could be determined afterwards.