Patna High Court
Thakur Grija Nandan Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 December, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1985(33)BLJR593
JUDGMENT Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.
1. These five writ applications have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The petitioner in all these writ applications is the landlord. Respondent No. 5 in each of the writ applications have claimed themselves to be privileged persons under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The petitioner in each of these applications has prayed for quashing the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 8 of each of the writ petitions. By order dated 9-6-1975 contained in Annexure 1 of the writ applications the Anchal Adhikari has granted Parchas to respondent No. 5 of each of the writ applications under the provisions of the Act. By Annexure-8 of the each of the writ application the Additional Collector has ordered restoration of possession to respondent No. 5 of each of the writ petitions.
2. Respondent No. 5 of each of the petitions filed applications under Section 5(1) of the Act for restoration of possession over their homestead" It was, inter alia, stated that they were privileged tenants and were entitled for a permanent tenancy in the homestead held by them. The applications were initially allowed. The Additional Collector affirmed those orders against which the petitioner came to this Court and filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was numbered as C.W.J.C. 1200 of 1977. On 28-3-1979 a Bench of this Court remanded the case back to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms to hold an inquiry in accordance with Rule 5 of the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules. It appears that an inquiry was held and a report was submitted by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms on 12-12-1979. Relying upon that report the Additional Collector has by the order contained in Annexure-8 of each of these writ applications ordered restoration of possession to Respondent No. 5 of each of these petitions, as stated above.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the applications having been filed by respondent No. 5 of each of these petitions sometime in the year 1974 could not be one under Section 5 of the Act and no order for restoration could therefore be passed. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as under:
5. Privileged tenant ejected from homestead within one year before the date of commencement of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Amendment) Act, 1952'-
If any privileged tenant has been ejected by his landlord from his homestead or any part thereof within one year before the date of the commencement of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952, (Bihar Act 23 of 1952) otherwise than in due course of law, such tenant shall, for the purposes of Section 4, be deemed to have held such homestead or part thereof, as the case may be, continuously for a period of one year before the commencement of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952, (Bihar Act 23 of 1952) and he may apply to the Collector for the restoration of his possession over the homestead or part thereof from which he has been so ejected.
Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952 to be deemed to have held it on such date continuously for a period of one year.
It is manifest that Section 5 of the Act shall be applicable only in a case where a privileged tenant has been ejected by his landlord from his homestead or any part thereof within one year before the date of the commencement of the Act. Section 5(1) of the Act was amended by Bihar Act 23 of 1952, which came into force on 7th of December 1952. Section 5(1), therefore, shall be applicable only in a case if a privileged tenant was ejected by his landlord one year prior to 7th of December, 1952. It is not contemplated by this Act that any such application under Section 5(1) of the Act shall be filed even if a person was ejected after the 7th of December, 1952. Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, with his usual fairness has stated that in the circumstances of these cases applications under Section 5(1) of the Act were not maintainable. However he submits that the applications could be treated as one under Section 8(5) of the Act. I do not think that question arises in this case at this stage and I need not go into that question. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the applications filed by respondent No. 5 in each of the writ applications on the basis of which the impugned orders passed were not maintainable. These applications, therefore, have to be allowed only on that ground.
4. The applications are, accordingly, allowed and the order contained in Annexures 1 and 8 of each of the writ applications are quashed, but without costs.