ARATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application under Articles 216 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing Annexures 2, 3 and 4 contained the orders passed by the authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as an "the Act)".

(2.) The simple point for consideration in his petition is : Whether the separate property of the wife can be clubbed together with the property of the husband for the purpose of decision under the Act ?

(3.) In our opinion, the answer must be given in the negative. If the wife possesses separate lands from her husband, she herself is a land-holder under the Act. In the present case, the admitted position is that in 1953 there was a partition between the husband and Arti Devi, the first wife. The partition took place because Harbansh Narain Singh (respondent no. 5) married a second wife. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in the landlords records. This transfer is before 22nd October, 1959. The correctness of this transfer cannot be challenged by the authorities under the Act. If it is so, she does not come within the definition of "family". She ceased to be a member of the family of respondent no. 5 as soon as partition took place between her and respondent no. 5. Hence, in our opinion, she herself is a land-holder and she holds a different entity from her husband. It it stated in paragraph no. 6 that it is for this reason that the autnorities under the Act initiated a separate proceeding against her in Ceiling Case No. 255 of 1973-74. She also filed a return about her lands in that proceeding. Thereafter, Land Ceiling Case no. 58 of 1973-74 was initiated against Harbansh Narain Singh (respondent no. 5). This petition arises out of Land Ceiling Case No. 58 of 1973-74. In this case, the husband (Harbansh Narain Singh) took an objection that the land measuring 26.21 acres cannot be made the subject-matter of the present ceiling case as the land is in possession of the petitioner, Arti Devi. The Deputy Collector, land Reforms, in Annexure-2, rejected this contention. Similarly, in Annexures-3 and 4, also, the contention of Arti Devi was rejected. In our opinion, the authorities under the Act erred in law in holding so.