ASHARAFI SINGH versus KAPILDEO RAI (DEAD) AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 19-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASHARAFI SINGH 
v. 
KAPILDEO RAI (DEAD) AND ORS 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND A.K. MATHUR. JJ.) 
Land Laws: 
Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation ACL, 
C 1956--Sections 2(9), 5-Land purchased after Notification and on completion 
of consolidation proceedings-Buyer's case that hy Notification land came 
within jurisdiction of Patna Regional Development Authority, thus 1956 Act 
not applicable-Held: 1956 Act is applicable since the definition of land is 
emphatic and ve1y wide---Sanction granted for tram/er of land is subject to 
D rights and liabilities under consolidation scheme. 
It was appellant's case that he had purchased certain land in 1983 
which, prior to purchase by Notification of 1978, came within jurisdiction 
of Patna Regional Development Authority, and as such the land did not 
come within the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of 
E Fragmentation Act, 1956. Both the Single Judge and DiYision Bench of 
High Court rejected the case. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 2(9) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and 
F Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 is emphatic and also couched in 
very wide language. It defines "land" which means agricultural lands and 
includes horticultural land, kharaur land, land with bamboo clumps, 
pasture land, cultivable waste land, home steads, tanks, wells and water-
channels. Section 5 of the Act is very clear. The transfer or partition would 
G be subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the term under the 
consolidation scheme in respect of such area. In the instant case, the sale 
was made in. favour of the appellant after the Notification and the 
consolidation proceedings ·~ere over on 10.1.1975 and 20.2.1975. Thus, 
there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by Division Bench of High 
H 
Court upholding the order passed by the Single Judge of High Court that 
390 
-( 
ASHARAFI SINGH v. KAPILDEO RAI (DEAD) [AR. LAKSHMANAN. J.]391 
the Consolidation Act is applicable. 1391-E-G; 392-D-Ej 
Mirza Sulaiman Beg & Ors v. Harihar Mahto & Ors.; 119851 33 Bihar 
Law Journal Reports 585, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1364 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1L1998 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna .in L.P.A. No. 821/J 998. 
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and Sudhanshu Saran for the Appellant. 
Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf 
of both sides. 
The counsel for the appellant argued only one contention before the 
High Court that the land in question does not come within the provisions of 
Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 
A 
B 
c 
D 
(for short 'the Act') inasmuch as the appellant had purchased the land in 
question through registered sale deed dtl 2:0 L 1983 and by Notification 
dt.09.01.1978, the village where the land is located has come within the E 
jurisdiction of the Patna Regional Development Authority and, therefore, 
Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 
has no application. The said contention was reiterated by the learned counsel 
for the appellant before us. The said contention, in our view, has no force. 
Section 2(9) of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of 
Fragmentation Act, 1956 defines the "land" which means agricultural lands F 
and includes horticultural land, kharaur land, land with bamboo clumps, pasture 
land, cultivable waste land, home steads, tanks, wells and water-channels. 
The definition of "land" in Section 2(9) of the Act was considered by the 
High Court of Patna in Mirza Su/aiman Beg & Ors. v. Harihar Mahto & 
Ors., reported in (1985) 33 Bihar Law Journal Reports 585. The Bench was G 
also of the view that confining the land to being strictly agricultural land in 
nature, in fact, extends it to matters and things, .which cannot strictly be 
labelled as 'agricultural land' - for instance, includes 'homestead', and, by 
itself, a homestead was not an agricultural land stricto sensu. In our opinion, 
Section 2(9) of the Act is emphatic and also couched in very wide language. H 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A That being so, we are of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the 
order passed by the Division Bench affirming the order passed by the learned 
Single J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.