BHARAT PRASAD & ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 309 
.,. 
BHARAT PRASAD & ORS. 
A 
V. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2009) 
MAY 06, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
,•-
GANGULY, JJ.] 
• -
Bihar Tenancy Act - Section 48E (13) - Proceedings c 
initiated under s.48E and terminated in favour of appellants 
holding their rights as Bataidar - Such proceedings became 
final - Provision of s. 1441145 CrPC was not then invokable -
s.48E(13) provides exclusion of power of civil and criminal 
"f 
court over Bataidari rights - This is in tune with the principle 
of distributive justice - Courts must interpret the provisions D 
of such socio-economic legislation in a manner which further 
its purpose rather than frustrate it - Interpretation of statutes 
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.5, 144, 145 -
Principle of distributive justice. 
E 
The land in dispute was mortgaged in 1920. The 
owner of the land sold the land in 1943 by registered sale 
-; 
deed. The mortgage was not redeemed and the 
mortgagee remained in possession of the disputed land. 
The mortgagee gave the land to the appellants and his 
F 
brothers to cultivate as Bataidars. In 1977, the mortgagee 
tried to dispossess the appellants from Batai land 
whereupon Bataidars filed case. Said case was decided 
in favour of appellants. No appeal was filed against that 
order and it became final. Thereafter Bataidars separated G 
..I, 
and partitioned their land properties including the 
disputed land among themselves. 
Various proceedings under Section 144/145 Cr.P.C 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A were initiated between the parties. Ultimately appellants 
claimed to have filed Bataidari (Tenant) Case before the 
appropriate authority. All the cases were heard together, 
and Circle Officer came to a finding that appellants were 
the tenant in respect of the disputed land and directed 
B them to deposit money for creating Zamabandi in their 
name, which they did. The respondents filed Criminal 
Miscellaneous Case for quashing those proceedings and 
various criminal proceedings initiated between the 
parties, which were dismissed. Challenging that order, 
c the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed before the~ 
High Court. High Court refused to quash the 
proceedings. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The High Court did not consider the effect 
~. ' 
of the relevant provisions of Bihar Tenancy Act and the 
.., 
ambit of Section 145 of the CrPC. [Para 20) [316-G-H] 
Badri Yadav v. Sat Narain Das and others (1993) Supp. 
E (2) sec 347, relied on. 
2. In the instant case clear finding was arrived at that 
the appellants were Bataidars. Such a finding was arrived 
at under the provision of the Bihar Tenancy Act which is 
a special law. The provisions of Section 48E of the said 
.t 
F Act provides for a complete machinery for enquiry into 
the rights of a Bataidar and also provides for some 
protection. Section 49C also imposes some restriction on 
the transfer of such rights which is created in favour of 
the tenants. So provisions of Section 48E and those of 
G Section 49C supplement each other. [Para 21) [317-A-C] 
H 
3. The legislative purpose in enacting the provisions 
of Section 48E of the Act is to ensure that the disputes 
between raiyats and under-raiyats are settled as amicably 
-
BHARAT PRASAD & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 
311 
ORS. 
'"'· 
as possible and for that, detailed machinery was provided 
A 
under Section 48E of the said Act. It cannot be doubted 
that said Act is a special and local law in the sense it is 
confined within the State of Bihar. If the provisions of 
Section 48E (13) of said Act is read as against Section 5 
Cr.P.C., it will be clear that the effect of Section 5 Cr.P.C. 
B 
is to render the provisions of Cr.P.C. inapplicable in 
Jo 
respect of all matters covered by such special law. [Paras 
• 
22 and 24) (317-C-D; 318-A-B] 
-· 
Ajmer Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others c 
1987 (3) SCC 340 and Maru Ram v. Union of India and 
others ((1981) 1 sec 107, relied on. 
4. Sub-section 13 of Section 48E of the said Act 
makes it clear that no Civil or Criminal Court shall have 
any jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute after D 
a proceeding is initiated under sub-section (1) of the 
Collector. Admittedly a proceeding under Section 48E 
was initiated and it terminated in favour of the appellants 
holding their rights as Bataidar. The said adjudication 
became final.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.