Patna High Court
Narain Chandra Deb Dhabal Deb vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 October, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1969(17)BLJR247
JUDGMENT U.N. Sinha, J.
1. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the respondents may be directed by an appropriate writ or order to settle certain Hats with the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner has stated that his father, late Sri Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb, the ex-proprietor of Pargana Dhalbhum, in his lifetime, was holding weekly markets and market place (Hats), long before 1947, at certain places within the Pargana of Dhalbhum, mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application. By a registered deed of lease dated the 11th September, 1947, the petitioner's father had granted a lease of these Hats to Dhjl-bhum Trades and Industries Limited, a joint stock company, for a period of twenty years, at a yearly rent. The family of the deceased held about ninety per cent. of the shares in the said company the petitioner being the Chairman of the Board of Directors at present. Pargana Dhalbhum vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act at the end of 1951 and possession was taken on the 19th. June, 1952. It is stated in the application that after the vesting of the estate, the company continued to pay rent reserved in respect of the Hats to the State of Bihar. It is stated that after the expiry of the lease, the company has made an application to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhalbhum, district Singhbhum, who is respondent opposite party No. 2, for renewal of the lease for another twenty years. According to the petitioner, he has come to know that the Block Development Officers concerned had notified for auction of the Hats within their jurisdiction. The petitioner complains that he had not received any notice or invitation to file application for taking settlement of the Hats in controversy. The petitioner contends that the steps taken by the authorities are without jurisdiction, being in violation of Section 7-C of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the relevant Rules. In these circumstances the present application has been filed for the relief mentioned above.
3. Sections 4(a), 7-A, 7-B and 7-C of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 are quoted below for appreciating the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner:
Section 4.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, on the publication of the Notification under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 or Sub-section (i) or (2) of Section 3-A, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:
(a) Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure, and his interest in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazars, (mela) and ferries and all other sairati interests as also his interest in all sub-soil including any rights in minds and minerals, whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether being worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure (other than the interests of raiyat or under-raiyats shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all in-cumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder, shall cease to have any interests in such estate or tenure, other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act.
Section 7-A-"Nothing in Section 5, Section 6 or Section 9 shall be deemed to confer any right on the intermediary in respect of any land on which at any time within one year prior to the date of vesting of the estate or tenure the intermediary was holding a hat or bazar.
Section 7-B-"Where on any land deemed to have been settled with the intermediary under the provisions of Section 5, Section 6 or Section 7, a Mela was being held by the intermediary at any time within 3 years of the date of vesting the right to hold such Mela on such land shall, with effect from such date, vest in the State and notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the state shall have and the intermediary shall not, except with the consent of the State Government, have the right to hold such Mela on such land or to do anything which may prejudicially affect such Mela.
Provided that where there is a settlement in force under Section 7-C in respect of such mela no such consent shall be given."
Section 7-C(1) "Where it is intended to settle, at any time after the first day of January, 1960, any hat, bazar or mela, held on any land before the date of vesting and referred to in Section 7-A or Section 7-B, the Collector or the prescribed authority shall, subject to the rules made in this behalf in the first instance, invite application for the purpose of settling such hat, bazar or mela, as the case may be, from the outgoing intermediary of such land or his heir whose name is registered in this behalf in the prescribed manner with the Collector or the prescribed authority and shall, on -receipt of such application, settle hat, bazar, or mela with the applicant in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
Explanation.- If there are two or more such intermediaries or heirs, the Collector or the prescribed authority may settle the hat, bazar or mela, as the case may be with such of them, as in his or its opinion appear to be most suitable.
(2) If no application is received Under Sub-section (1) or if the applicant fails to take the settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions offered to him under the said sub-section, the Collector or the prescribed authority may settle the hat, bazar or me/a, as the case may be, with any person, Explanation-In this sub-section the word 'person' shall include a society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Society Act 1935 (B. & O. Act VII of 1935) and Gram Panchayat established under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. (Bihar Act VII of 1948).
4. Sri A.C. Mitra has contended that the Hats in question had vested in the State of Bihar under Section 4(a) of the Land Reforms Act and now that the question of settlement has arisen, the Hats must be settled with the petitioner, as his family is governed by the rule of primogeniture. According to the learned Counsel, Section 7-C of the Act does not govern exclusively the Hats mentioned in Section 7-A and the words "any hat...held on any land before the date of vesting and referred to in Section 7-A ... govern Hats which are mentioned in Section 7-A of the Act, whereas Section 7-C, as a whole, governs other Hats which have vested under the general provision of Section 4(a). That is to say, according to the learned Counsel, the words "and referred to in Section 7-A in Section 7-C govern particular Hats covered by Section 7-A, and the words, "any hat...held on any land before the date of: vesting" refer to other Hats not falling within the scope of Section 7-A, but which have also vested in the State of Bihar. I do not think that the contentions raised by Shri Mitra are acceptable. Section 7-A, 7-B and 7-C were added by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act XVI of 1959) in order to solve the controversy raised with respect to the right of ex-intermediaries over lands or mines covered by Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. All these three added sections have to be read together, and in my opinion, the contention raised by Sri Mitra that Section 7-C contemplates two kinds of Hats is not valid. If Sri Mitra's argument is correct, then the words; "any hat...held on any land before the date of vesting ... ... " will also cover the Hats referred to in Section 7-A. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the words "and referred to in Section 7-A", mentioned in Section 7-C, have been incorporated in that section as a matter of abundant caution, to clarify that two kinds of Hats are contemplated that section. This argument is not at all acceptable in this context. If the earlier words cover the Hats referred to in Section 7-A, then, there was no meaning in adding the words, "and referred to in Section 7-A" to delineate a particular kind of Hat referred to in Section 7-A apart from the Hats which have vested and which are not covered by that section. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that if there is any doubt about the interpretation of Section 7-C, the heading of that section resolves the dispute in favour of his client. But, in my opinion, if any thing, the heading goes against the contention of the learned Counsel. The heading of Section 7-C is with respect to settlement of Hats with the outgoing intermediary or his heir, in the first instance. This must mean Hats covered by Section 7-A only, giving the intermediary or his heir certain rights under Section 7-C. Sri Mitra has also contended that the provisions of Section 7C are discriminatory and are in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This contention is also not valid and the matter is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. R.P.N. Singh based on Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.
5. All the points raised by Sri Mitra for the petitioner fail and this application is dismissed with cost, which is assessed at Rs. 200/-.
Kanhaiyaji, J.
6. I agree.