Sarswati Devi v. Kausalya Devi — 1984 DIGILAW 55 (PAT)

Judgment S.K.Choudhuri, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the summary dismissal of the writ application numbered as C. W. J. C. No. 1459 of 1980, by order dt. 18th July 1980, by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The relevant facts for appreciation of the point raised may be stated here : -- The appellant purchased 0.55 acre of land appertaining to plot No. 477, khata No. 84 in village Balabeltaul, Police-station Barkagaon district Hazaribagh under a registered sale deed executed by Banedhi Mian and others (respondents Nos. 2 to 4 of this appeal). This document was executed on 17th June, 1976 and was registered on 20-6-1976. After execution and registration of this sale deed, respondent No. 1 Kaushalya Devi filed an application under Sec.16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act XII of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 23rd of September 1976, before the Collector appointed under the Act. In that application she claimed to be the raiyat of the adjoining land sold to the appellant i.e. raiyat of plots Nos. 475 and 489. She filed the said application after depositing the necessary amount of Rs. 3,300.00 in the Treasury to the credit of the Collector of Hazaribagh Sub-division. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, an officer empowered by the State Government to discharge functions of a Collector under the Act, registered the said application as Case No. 15 of 1976-77. Notice was accordingly issued to the appellant to show cause against the claim of respondent No. 1. On receipt of the notice, the appellant filed her show cause claiming herself to be the raiyat of the adjoining plots, namely, plot Nos. 466 and 476. It has been stated in the show cause that in plot No. 466 the father-in-law of the appellant constructed a house about 45 years ago and plot No. 476 is a gairmazarua land in possession of her husband, which has been amalgamated with plot No. 466. With regard to the claim of the respondent No. 1 that she was a raiyat of the adjacent plots namely plots, Nos. With regard to the claim of the respondent No. 1 that she was a raiyat of the adjacent plots namely plots, Nos. 475 and 489, the denial in the show cause was only with respect to plot No. 475, about which it was stated that the said plot does not belong to respondent No. 1, but it belonged to one Manohar Pandey, who has not exercised the right of pre-emption. 3. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector (respondent No. 5) by his reasoned judgment and order dt. 6th April 1978, allowed the claim of respondent No. 1. He found that the appellant is neither a co-sharer nor an adjoining raiyat of the land purchased by her (i.e. plot No. 477), whereas respondent No. 1 is the adjoining raiyat of the plot in question. The learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms while discussing this question has pointed out as follows : -- ".....From the deed executed and in question shows that Janakram Pandey is in south and in east of the plot as per khatian boundary. As per present boundary, names of Manohar Pandey and others find place in the south. It appears from the papers filed by the applicant that this plot No. 475 was the bakasht land of Janak Ram Pandey and the name of his wife finds place for which rent receipts are also being granted in the name of Kaushalya Devi after the death of Janak Ram Pandey." The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, who dismissed it by his judgment and order dt. 31st January, 1979. It has been pointed out and rightly by the appellate authority that respondent No. 1 was an adjacent raiyat was not challenged and that question was not in dispute. While deciding the question, as to whether the case of the appellant, who claimed to be the adjacent raiyat, is correct or not, the appellate authority pointed out that such claim of the appellant was through her husband. In other words, she herself did not claim to be raiyat of any adjoining plot, but pleaded that her husband was an adjoining raiyat. In other words, she herself did not claim to be raiyat of any adjoining plot, but pleaded that her husband was an adjoining raiyat. In such a situation the lower appellate authority was right in pointing out that in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the wife during the lifetime of her husband cannot claim to be a raiyat through her husband. It, therefore, rejected the claim of the appellant to be an adjacent raiyat of the plot purchased by her. Thereafter the appellant filed the writ application before this Court as already stated above, which was placed for admission before a learned single Judge, who, after hearing, dismissed the said writ application in limine. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that neither the original authority nor the appellate authority considered the papers filed by the parties for arriving at a finding that the appellant was not an adjacent raiyat of the land purchased by her. The judgments of both the authorities below were placed before us. I have carefully gone through both the judgments and I do not find any infirmity in any of these judgments. It has not been pointed out during the course of argument by learned Counsel for the appellant as to which papers had not been considered by them. It appears that oral evidence was not adduced by any of the parties, but they relied upon the sale deeds and the khatian which were filed. After discussion and, for cogent reasons, it has been found by both the authorities below that respondent No. 1 is an adjacent raiyat of the plot purchased by the appellant, whereas the appellant has failed to prove that she was an adjacent raiyat in relation to the plot purchased by her. The lower appellate authority has dealt with all the points raised before it and rejected them by giving cogent reasons. 5. The next point argued by learned Counsel for the appellant was that the deposit of Rs. 3,300.00 was not in accordance with law. He argued that the said deposit should have been made to the credit of the Collector under the Act, and the amount admittedly having been deposited in treasury to the credit of the Collector of Hazaribagh Sub-division was not a valid deposit. This point has been raised for the first time before this Court. He argued that the said deposit should have been made to the credit of the Collector under the Act, and the amount admittedly having been deposited in treasury to the credit of the Collector of Hazaribagh Sub-division was not a valid deposit. This point has been raised for the first time before this Court. It appears that this amount was deposited by writing the following words : -- "....to the credit of the Collector under the Act of the area concerned, namely, the Collector of Hazaribagh Sub-division." The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant was that it would have been an effective deposit if it would have been deposited in the name of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who was the Collector under the Act and who initiated the proceeding. I fail to appreciate this point. The proviso to Sec.16(3) of the Act requires that the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten per cent thereof shall be deposited in the prescribed manner. The manner in which the deposit has to be made has been prescribed in Rule 19(i) read with the prescribed form which is Form No. LC-13. They show that it has to be deposited to the credit of the Collector under the Act of the area concerned. It will be apposite to mention here that the definition of Collector as defined under the Act is very wide, which includes an Additional Collector, or any other officer not below the rank of a Sub-Deputy Collector appointed by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under the Act. Therefore, if the amount has been deposited to the credit of the Collector under the Act of the area concerned, namely, the Collector of Hazaribagh Subdivision, I fail to appreciate how such a deposit can be said to be invalid deposit. The Act and the Rules framed thereunder nowhere lay down that the deposit should be made to the credit of the Collector who initiates the proceedings. 6 It appears from the paper book that along with the application under Section 16(3) of the Act, a chalan, in proof of the deposit of the required amount, was annexed by respondent No. 1. Therefore, in my view, all the formalities of law that were necessary were complied with by respondent No. 1 before the application under Sec.16(3) of the Act was entertained. Therefore, in my view, all the formalities of law that were necessary were complied with by respondent No. 1 before the application under Sec.16(3) of the Act was entertained. 7. During the course of arguments a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in C. W. J. C. Nos. 4694 and 4698 of 1978, (Hari Sharan Singh V/s. Brinda Singh) disposed of on 24-1-1980 was cited. That decision, it appears, has taken the view that the deposit should have been made in the name of the particular Collector, who was dealing with the case. For the reasons stated above, with due respect, I am unable to agree with the said view. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. S.Sarwar Ali, J. 9 I agree.