Patna High Court
Kapleshwar Mishra vs State on 24 September, 2012
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5173 of 1991
===========================================================
Kapleshwar Mishra substituted by:
1. Indeshwar Mishra
2. Parmeshwar Mishra
3. Naresh Kumar Mishra
4. Nand Kishore Mishra
5. Arun Kumar Mishra all sons of Kapileshwar Mishra, residents of village
Kachahari Balua Tola Hemnagar, P.S. Sarsi, Purnea
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Collector, Purnea
3. Commissioner, Purnea Division
4. Circle Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea
5. Additional Collector, Purnea
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. KUMAR UDAY SINGH with
Mr. Ram Narayan Singh
For the Respondent/s : None
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-09-2012
K. K. Mandal, J. During the pendency of this application the sole petitioner died and has
been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives. This Court, for the sake
of convenience, would refer the petitioner as the original writ petitioner.
2 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012
2 / 13
This application filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India seeks issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) to quash the order dated
20.8.1990(Annexure-2) passed by the Respondent-Collector, Purnea in Misc.
Case No.2/82-83 in purported exercise of power under section 49K of the Bihar Tenancy Act ( for short the „Act‟) and the order dated 22.04.1991 passed on appeal by the Respondent-Commissioner, Purnea Division in Revision Case No. 43/90-91 (Annexure-3).
F A C TS A report dated 10.9.1982 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Bankmankhi, Purnea in respect of certain land(s) owned and possessed by the original writ petitioner. The said report formed the basis of initiation of a suo motu proceeding on 11.03.1983 by the Respondent-Collector vide Misc. Case No. 2/82-83. A notice (Annexure-1) was issued to the original writ petitioner to show cause as to why he be not evicted from different categories of land(s) spelt out therein and be resumed by the State under the provisions of the Act. The notice dealt with three categories of land held by the original writ petitioner. As per the notice, original writ petitioner had acquired certain land(s) detailed therein on the strength of „Ladavinama‟ executed in favour of original writ petitioner by the person(s) who were protected tenant(s) within the meaning of the Act who were recorded as „Sikmidar‟ in respect thereof. This was the first category of the land held by the original writ petitioner. The second category of land set out in the notice pertained to those lands which was/were acquired by the original writ petitioner from the protected tenant(s)/person(s) by reason of decree(s) passed in rent execution proceeding/suit(s) instituted against the protected tenant(s). The third category of the lands were the lands which were purchased by the original writ petitioner from the protected landholder/tenant. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 3 / 13 The original writ petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. By the impugned order dated 20.8.1990 (Annexure-2), the Respondent-Collector rejected the cause shown by the original writ petitioner and directed for his eviction from those lands and resumption thereof. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal under section 49-O of the Act was filed which was registered as Revision Case No. 43/90-91. The appellate court affirmed the order of the Respondent-Collector in respect of the first two categories of the lands. While conceding the claim of the landholder that the lands falling under category III were purchased by him after obtaining due permission from the competent authority as required under the Act, the matter was remanded for making enquiry with respect to adherence of the procedures of grant of such permission by the Respondent Circle Officer. Aggrieved thereby, present writ application has been filed.
Heard Mr. Kumar Uday Singh for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the State inasmuch as no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Respondent to resist the relief(s) claimed under the writ application. Let it be recorded that since nobody had appeared on behalf of the State- Respondent(s), this Court vide order dated 28.04.2012 directed the counsel to serve again a copy of the brief on the State. Mr. Kumar Uday Singh informs the Court that a copy of the brief was served on the State as per the order of this Court dated 24.8.2012. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners disclosing therein the details of lands covered under three categories of land in respect whereof notice (Annexure-1) was issued.
Mr. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first category of land(s) is/are covered by the deed of Ladavinama executed by those persons in whose names Sikmi right was recorded in the relevant khatiyan of the land. Ladavi means a deed of relinquishment. It is a release or acquittance 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 4 / 13 without claim. The respondent erred in treating those Ladavinamas as surrender of land(s) and therefore, covered by the provisions of the Act vesting the Respondent-Collector with the jurisdiction to set aside those deeds, evict the original writ petitioner therefrom and settle the land in accordance with the Act. He next submits that the second category of land is covered by the decree(s) passed in rent execution proceeding(s). The respondent authority quite erroneously held that those lands were also required to be re-possessed/acquired after setting aside the orders passed in the eviction suit(s) as the execution proceeding(s), in the facts and circumstances of the case, were required to be undergone by the Collector under Act in terms of section 49M(2)(a) thereof. In his submissions, the respondent completely failed to consider that the provision contained in section 49(M)(1)(b) was not applicable to the case as the same dealt with case of protected raiyat being member of SC/ST category in holding or any portion thereof. Elucidating further learned counsel submits that section 49(M)(2)(a) of the Act deals with a case where a decree for arrear of rent in respect of the holding of a protected raiyat has been passed. In the said circumstance, the decree is required to be sent to the Collector under the Act for execution thereof. Admittedly, as per the case of the respondents the protected tenant against whom such execution proceeding were launched were not the raiyat but Sikmidar(s). They were thus, at best, under raiyats within the meaning of the Act. While dealing with the case of category III it has been submitted that from bare perusal of the sale deed(s) (copies whereof have been enclosed along with the writ petition and supplementary affidavit) it would appear that the Circle Officer and the Consolidation Officer, in few cases, granted permission which was/were duly incorporated in relevant documents of sale. The appellate authority in the impugned order (Annexure-3) has found the same. Having 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 5 / 13 conceded the aforesaid stand of the original writ petitioner the matter has been remitted by the appellate authority for making an enquiry to ascertain whether the procedure prescribed therefor was/were undergone. It has, thus, been argued that the appellate authority negated the finding of the Respondent-Collector that the Circle Officer was not competent authority to grant/accord permission before the sale of the land by the protected raiyat/under raiyat under the Act. He submits that the order of remand made in respect of category III land is fit to be interfered with by this Court on the ground that the same would result in making only a fishy enquiry in the face of the clear finding recorded by the respondent appellate authority in the impugned order (Annexure-3) that the sale deeds did disclose the relevant details in which such permission was sought and granted by the respondent Circle Officer. In the same vein, he submits that this Court while considering the challenge made to the virus of the provisions of the Act imposing such restrictions on the protected tenant/under tenant belonging to other backward classes in the case of B.Thakur vs. K. Singh since reported in 1969 BLJR 134 ((FB) found and held that no provision was made either in the Act or in the Rule made thereunder to guide the Collector in the matter of grant or refusal of an application seeking approval for transfer of the land by the protected tenant. Particular reliance in this regard has been placed on paragraph 13 of the report. Relying on the averments made in the supplementary affidavit, it is contended that the entire suo motu action taken by the Respondent-Collector was wholly uncalled for in view of the fact that the portion of the land failing under these categories have been allowed to be retained by the original writ petitioner in land ceiling case no. 29/74-75 initiated against him. A copy of the notification/declaration made under section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act has been enclosed as Annexure-11 in order to buttress the said contention. 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 6 / 13 Before proceeding to examine the contention of the petitioners this Court culls out hereinbelow the findings recorded by the Respondent-Collector in respect of three different categories of land which was/were affirmed by the Respondent-Collector excepting the findings recorded in respect of the land covered under category III.
(I) Ladavinama is a form of surrender of Sikmi right and the same is prohibited under section 49L of the B.T. Act. According to this provision the landlord after the surrender of the tenancy by a protected tenant can settle it with a member of the scheduled cast, scheduled tribes or backward classes or with the approval of the Collector in writing, settle the same with a person who is not a member of the SC/ST or backward classes. Therefore, the landlord having himself retained the land surrendered by the Sikmidars, is illegal.
(II) According to section 49(M)(2)(a) of the B.T. Act, in case of execution of a decree for arrears of rent in the case of holdings belonging to a raiyat who is a member of SC/ST or backward classes, the execution of the decree has to be done by the Collector which has not been done in the present case. In any case, the maximum period a land lord can be put in possession of the land after execution is only 7 years and the said period has elapsed. Thus the landlord has got no right now to retain the land in question, which should be restored to the original raiyats.
(III) In regard to the lands purchased from members of the scheduled tribes by sale deeds are concerned, they have been purchased with the permission of the Circle Officer, who is not an authorized person to give permission for the transfer of the land by sale. It is only the Collector under the Act who is authorized to 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 7 / 13 give permission in such cases.
On appeal preferred by the original writ petitioner the respondent appellate authority affirmed the findings (1) and (II) of the Respondent-Collector. With regard to the third category, the appellate authority found that the Circle Officer was duly authorized during the relevant time to accord permission for sale by protected tenant/raiyat. Having found so, the matter has been remitted only to make an inquiry to ascertain whether the procedure prescribed therefor was/were undergone or not.
Dealing with the claim of the petitioners covered by Ladavinama under category (i) the question for consideration is whether such Ladavinama is surrender of land which is prohibited under section 49L(b)(ii) of the Act. Petitioners have brought on record few copies of Ladavinama. Based on the recitals made therein, it has been contended that all these documents are deeds of admission as the makers thereof have admitted therein that although they were recorded as Sikmidar but at no point of time they were in cultivating possession of the land which always remained with the raiyat in whose name the khatiyan was prepared. They have thus admitted that the entry of their names in R.S. Khatiyan as Sikmidars of the lands in question was wrong and at no point of time they were in cultivating possession of the lands in question as Bataidars/under raiyats. Petitioners have also pleaded that in a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. vide Case No. 1470M/1985 the Executive Magistrate by his order dated 9.9.1988 declared the original writ petitioner in possession of the lands in dispute till two months prior to initiation of proceeding and directed for restoration of possession. The Circle Officer having failed to comply with the aforesaid order provided an occasion to the original writ petitioner to file a criminal writ petition 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 8 / 13 in this Court vide Cr. W.J.C. No. 193 of 1999 wherein this Court by order dated 20.9.1999 (Annexure-12) directed the authority concerned to comply with the order of the Executive Magistrate forthwith. The original writ petitioner was restored possession. Entry in khatiyan has presumptive value which is rebuttable. It cannot be disputed that such entry is not a document of title. No right thus can be created where none existed by virtue of an entry in the records of right. Any admission by way of deed made by a person can be used against the said person under the relevant provision of the Evidence Act. On going through the recitals made in Ladavinama, this Court finds that makers thereof have only admitted continued cultivating possession of the land holder over the land. No element of surrender of Sikmi right, therefore, can be gathered therefrom. The fact which existed has been admitted by the maker thereof. If that is so, then the finding of the Respondent-Collector that the same amounts to surrender of Sikmi right, in my view, is not sustainable in law. The impugned action taken by the Respondent-Collector in respect of the first category of land is, therefore, held unsustainable in law. The nomenclature of the deed is not conclusive. The contents of the deed and other attending facts were not taken note of by the respondent. Release/surrender of a right in the land would arise only if an under raiyat has any such pregnant right therein. If there is none, then there is no question of release or surrender of such right.
Coming to the second category of land which is covered by decree of the court passed in proceeding(s) for realization of arrears of rent, this court finds that indisputably the protected tenants in this case were not the raiyats of the land(s). They claimed themselves as Sikmidar(s). In other words, under tenant(s). Section 49(M) (1) (b) provides that no decree or order shall be passed by any court for the sale of the right of a raiyat who is a member of 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 9 / 13 SC/ST in his holding or any portion thereof, nor shall such right be sold in execution of any decree except as provided in sub section 2. Section 49(M)(2)(a) of the Act provides that when a decree for arrear of rent which has accrued in respect of the holding of a raiyat who is a member of SC/ST has been passed the court shall send the order to the Collector for execution of the said decree. The Respondent-Collector in the impugned order (Annexure-2) has taken a view that the execution proceeding having not been sent to and undertaken by the Collector under the Act the same is liable to be ignored particularly when such sale in execution of the decree in respect of holding/portion thereof would be for a maximum period of seven years only. The petitioners have contended that the aforesaid provisions would not be applicable in the case of the petitioners since the second category of case was not in respect of the persons who were raiyat within the meaning of the section 5(2) of the B.T. Act.
Section 5 (2) and 5(3) of the B.T. Act read as under:-
"2. "Raiyat" means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants, or with the aid of partners, and includes also the successors in interest of persons who have acquired such a right.
3. A person shall not be deemed to be a raiyat unless he holds land either immediately under proprietor or immediately under a tenure holder."
It appears to be an admitted case of the party that the land covered by category (II) was recorded in the name of the protected tenant as Sikmidar. It is settled beyond cavil that a Sikmidar is an under raiyat and the term raiyat 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 10 / 13 does not include an under raiyat. Reference in this regard may be made to AIR 1976 Patna page 349. (Ramadhar Upadhya & Anr. Vs. Baldeo Ahir & Ors.). If a Sikmidar against whom the rent execution proceeding(s) was filed was not raiyat within the meaning of the Act, then the conditions/rigours provided under section 49(M)(2)(a) of the Act would not be applicable. The authority under the Act completely failed to consider this aspect of the matter which had bearing on the issue. The conclusion arrived at by the Respondent-Collector in the impugned order (Annexure-2) affirmed by the respondent appellant authority in Annexure-3 is, therefore, not sustainable in law.
The third category of lands are those lands in respect whereof the sale deed(s) was/were executed by the protected tenant(s). The petitioners have brought on record copies of some of the sale deeds. It is the stand of the original writ petitioner that those sale deeds do indicate that the sale was made after obtaining prior approval of the Circle Officer. The Respondent Commissioner, on a consideration of the matter, has found in his order (annexure-3) that during the relevant time the Circle Officer was authorized/competent to grant such permission. As noticed, having held so the matter has been remitted for making an enquiry to ascertain whether prescribed procedure therefor was/were undergone or not. While challenging the virus of the provisions putting such restrictions on sale/transfer of land held by the protected tenant(s) particularly those belonging to other backward classes, a Full Bench of this Court in B.Thakur vs. K.Singh (Supra) held as under in para 13 of the report:-
13. Mr. Sinha has contended, in the next place, that the provisions of Chapter VIIA of the Bihar Tenancy Act are bad not only on account of the restriction they have placed upon the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property but the
11 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 11 / 13 provisions are bad for other reasons as well as in so far as they are unreasonable also for the prospects as well. Reference has been made in this connection of the fact that, under Sec. 49G, quoted above, unfettered power has been conferred on the Collector, on an application being filed by a protected tenant for permission to transfer of his right by private sale or gift to any person, either to grant the permission or not to grant it without any guidance being given in the Act itself as to how the Collector shall exercise his power. It is true no doubt that, under Sec. 49-O of the Act, an appeal may be presented within thirty days from the date of the order appealed against from any order made under Sec. 49-G, 49-H,49-K,49-L or 49-M. Since no criterion has been laid down by which the Collector‟s discretion is to be exercised, it is difficult to be positive how the Court of appeal shall uphold or set aside the order of the Collector. If, for instance it was provided in the Act itself that the Collector shall satisfy himself as to the existence of any legal necessity for the sale, the genuineness of transfer, adequacy of consideration, etc. as has been done in similar provisions under Secs. 40 and 112A-
appeal being provided under Sec. 112B in the latter case and under clause (6) of Sec. 40 in regard to the former, the procedural defect would not initiate the provision. It may be stated that, in regard to the principle of commutation under Sec. 40. sub-
Sec.(4) provides the criterion by which the Collector is to be guided in making the determination of the amount of the rent on commutation, and Sec. 112A provides, in detail, in various causes how remission entire or partial of rent can be ordered. In such 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 12 / 13 cases, therefore, the appellate authority will be in a position to judge the correctness of the order passed by the authority, whose order has been made the subject of appeal before the appellate authority. Not so in the case of Sec.49G. wherein no provision has been made to guide the Collector as to the circumstances in which he can grant or refuse permission to the applicant to transfer his tenancy right. Reference has been made to a number of decisions by Mr. Sinha, appearing for the respondents, that, where power has been conferred upon a non-judicial authority to come to a decision without any criterion being laid down, it has been struck down as invalid. They cases are; Dr. N.B. khare v. the State of Delhi, Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das vs. State of Orissa, Narendra Kumar vs. The Union of India and Mineral Developmnt Ltd. V. the State of Bihar. He has also relied upon the proposition that reasonable restriction is a mixed question of law and fact, and referred to The State of Madras v. V.G. Row, State of West Bengal v.
Subodh Gopal Bose and Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v.
State of Vindh Pradesh. The contention of Mr.
Sinha is well grounded even in respect of this
point."
If that is the position in law then the order of remand for making a limited enquiry to ascertain adherence of the procedure undergone therefor passed by the appellate order (annexure-3) would also merit interference as no court would permit fishy enquiry to be made in the matter.
The matter can be viewed from a different angle also. Suo motu proceeding initiated by the Respondent-Collector has given rise to the impugned 13 Patna High Court CWJC No.5173 of 1991 dt.24-09-2012 13 / 13 order. Aggrieved/affected tenants/under tenants belonging to protected group under the Act did not approach the authority for initiation of any such proceeding. The respondent authority while initiating the proceeding and deciding the claim of the original writ petitioner to hold the land covered by the notice lost sight of the fact that in a proceeding initiated against the original writ petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act the State had allowed the landholder to retain within the ceiling unit part of the land covered by the notice (Annexure-1). The petitioners have brought on record the relevant publication of draft statement under section 11(1) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. There is no material on record that the land so allowed to be held by the landholder after publication of draft under section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act was interfered with amended or altered. In that situation, it was not appropriate on the part of the State Respondents in taking suo motu steps to divest the landholder from those lands by initiating proceeding under the provisions of the B.T. Act.
For the reasons noted above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order(s) passed by the Respondent-Collector and the appellate authority as contained in Anenxure-2 and 3 respectively are fit to be quashed and set aside. I order accordingly.
No cost(s).
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-