Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 821 (PAT)

Subhadra Devi v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-03

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. This mater has been to the Supreme Court twice. The petitioner still lingers with an issue that perhaps she might be the heir to a track of about 543.27 acres of land if it had not been declared as a forest and in the alternative she would be entitled to compensation. 2. This matter has been before the High Court on C.W.J.C.No. 1364 of 1988. The petition was allowed on a technicality that an appeal filed by the Commissioner under the Forest Act, 1927 perhaps was not maintainable as a second appeal. The order of the Commissioner was a consequential order also. But, the situation was interpreted on the record of C.W.J.C. No. 5782 of 1982, by the learned Judge deciding it that proceedings before the Commissioner were saved by virtue of a notification dated 5.11.1969, not brought to the notice of the Court earlier. The. learned Judge deciding the subsequent writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 3782 of 1988 by judgment dated 27 July, 2001 out of which this appeal arises was not inclined to grant relief that the petitioner may be entitled to a compensation on this 543. 27 acres or for that matter on 195 acres. 3. It appears that no one asked the relevant question from the petitioner while her lawyers ingenuity was embroiling the State into litigation for the last 51 years, as to how she could hold this land. 4. The original owner apparently, on the facts given to the Court, was the Ram Nagar Estate, as Zamindars. It is said that in 1945 a gift was made by this estate to a lady by the name of Gunwanti Devi. Gunwanti Devi it is asserted held the lands well until after the year 1950. This year is relevant. During this year the Legislature of the State passed a law which was bringing an agrarian revolution eliminating the Zamindari and putting an end to the exploitation of the tiller of the soil, the intention being to give the latter rights of his own on the land. 5. At present, the question is not how far the legislation has succeeded. The relevant aspect is that when the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 received the assent of the President of India on 25 September, 1950, in effect, Zamindari was abolished. 5. At present, the question is not how far the legislation has succeeded. The relevant aspect is that when the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 received the assent of the President of India on 25 September, 1950, in effect, Zamindari was abolished. Barring the permissible limits, whoever be the true owner of the land could neither possess it nor could till it after the date of vesting, no matter what the arrangements were. 6. tn the circumstances, even if it is accepted for the purposes of this case that Gunwanti Devi became the Zamindar upon a gift received from the earstwhile Zamindar, the Ram Nagar estate, her rights stood extinguished by the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Could the petitioner purchase lands after the abolition of Zamindari? Any sale which took place in the face of the Act was putting an end on the rights of landlord as Zamindar. Clearly, the sale deed was void. It is accepted in the writ petition that this sale took place on 10 July, 1951. A copy of the sale deed has not been appended to the writ petition. But, the Court will take the submission on its face value. This transfer which took place on the passing of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 passed no title to the petitioner in the face of an enactment which was drawing the chapter on the Zamindar to a close in the State of Bihar. A faint but unsuccessful plea was raised by the petitioner on record, of cultivation. The abolishing of Zamindari put an end to that too. 7. The balance which remains is that the petitioner had no right, no matter how she came in possession of the track of land, so as to claim either the return of the land or for that matter compensation on it. Further, no other person has any better title to a property except its true owner. Any rights on the property stood extinguished with true owner whoever he may have been whether Zamindar of Ram Nagar or other person who may have received the gift. Against the petitioner there are findings of benami and sham transactions with her title in shadow. It is accepted that the petitioner never sought any declaration to have the title declared. Any rights on the property stood extinguished with true owner whoever he may have been whether Zamindar of Ram Nagar or other person who may have received the gift. Against the petitioner there are findings of benami and sham transactions with her title in shadow. It is accepted that the petitioner never sought any declaration to have the title declared. The petitioner knew very well all along that if such an assertion were to be made in litigation before a civil court, she would have been grounded in justifying sale of Zamindari land after it was abolished. 8. The Court has seen the order of learned Judge on the writ petition dismissing it. The Court has no reason to differ with the order. The observations of the Court on this appeal are only in addition to what the learned Judge has written on the writ petition. Dismissed.