SURYAMOHAN THAKUR Vs. ARJUN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been filed by the same person who was plaintiff in three rent suits. They all raise questions regarding the interpretation of the Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act, 1938 (Bihar Act IX of 1938), but the question raised in second Appeal 628 is slightly different from that raised in the other two appeals. The respondents have not appeared in any of the appeals, but at the request of the Court the Government Pleader has appeared as amicus curiae in second appeal No. 628 with which it will be convenient to deal first.

(2.) In this appeal No. 628 the plaintiff-appellant holds a six anna ten pies share in the village in which the rent-claimed lands are situated. The holding previously consisted of 4.21 acres of land held by defendants 1 and 2 under the 16 annas proprietors of the village, but, in execution of a decree for rent, the plaintiff- appellant brought the holding to sale and purchased it himself and obtained possession some time before the Bihar Act, ix of 1938 came into force. At this stage the plaintiff-appellant was holding the entire land of the original holding under the provisions of Section 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act. The appellant then settled 1.54 acres of land with Kamleshwari Prasad Chaudhuri, defendant- respondent 3, who thereupon became a raiyat of that area as a separate holding.

(3.) This was the position when Bihar Act IX of 1938 came into force. The Act is described in the preamble as an Act to provide for the restoration of certain lands to the former tenants thereof and the reduction of arrears of rent in certain cases. Section 3 of the Act provides for applications by raiyats whose holdings or portions of whose holdings were sold between 1-11-1929 and 31-12-1937, in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and were purchased by the landlord of such holding where such holdings or portions were under the possession or control of the said landlord. An application was accordingly made by defendants 1 and 2, and on 27- 2-40 an order was passed by the Revenue Officer exercising powers of Collector for restoration to these defendants the possession of the entire holding, and delivery of possession was given in accordance with that order on 22-4-40. In the meantime, on 19-4-40, an order had been passed for reduction of the rent of the holding from Rs. 37-8 to Rs. 25-8 under the provisions of Section 1124, Bihar Tenancy Act. It is clear that on the delivery of possession objection was taken by defendant 3 which was evidently under Section 11 of Act ix of 1938, and thereafter on 24-5-1940 a revised order was passed by the Revenue Officer for restoration of defendants 1 and 2 to possession of 2.67 acres of land excluding the 1. 54 acres belonging to defendant 3 In the same order the Revenue Officer fixed the rental in respect of the 2.67 acres of land restored to defendants 1 and 2 at Rs. 18-15.