LexKAVIRAJ BASUDEVANAND versus MAHANT HARIHAR GIR (DEAD) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
590 KAVIRAJ BASUDEVANAND v. MAHANT HARIHAR GIR (DEAD) & ORS. August 1, 1974 (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] Bihar Land Refonns Act, 1950, ss. 9, JO and 12-Scope o(. The appellant's predecessor, who was one of the interme.diaries of certain vjllages filed .a- suit for, partition and a preliminary decree v.'as passed therein. Jn 1950, the Bthar Land Reforn15 Act came into force and all these villages vested in the State. The parties entered into a compron1ise but the State was not a party to it. A final decree was ~assed by the trial court in terms of the compromise. In appeal,· the High Court set aside the final decree on the ground that the suit had become infructuous as the plaintiff had no right in law to the properties, including the 1nines, which \Vere the subject n1attcr of the suit, as they had all vested in the State; and that, from the date of vesting, the original title of the proprietor con1pletcly vanished and a new title had come into existence. In appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) The judgment of the High Court should be niodified to the extent that there \Vi!J be a final decree in favour of the appellant in respect of bakhast and zirat lands subject to laws regarding ceiling on lands in force in the State. [596 A-BJ Bhubaneshwar v. Sideshwar [1971] 3 S. C. R. 639, followed. (2) The High Court \Vas in error in holding that the benefit of s. 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is not available to persons jointly interested in the mines before the date of vesting and that it is restricted only to the intermediary directly working the mines. Even though under s. 9 all mines which were in operation at the com- mencement of the Act and \Vere being worked directly by the intermediary shall be deemed to have been leased by the State to the intern1ediary, the appellant, as a cosharer, would be entitled to a share in such mines on the principle of Bhubanesh- war's case. It would not, however, be possible to give effect to the consent decree passed by the tdal court in respect of the mines. Nor would it be possible to pass a final decree in respect of bakhast and z;rat lands in favour of the Plaintiff and then leave the preliminary decree in respect of mines untouched leaving the plaintiff to put in a fresh application for final decree in respect of mines, as the subject is too complicated to be dealt with in the final decree proceedings. Hence, though the High Court was in error in holding that the appellant was not entitled to any share in the mines unless he \Vas himself directly working the'm, the appellant will have to work out the remedies in respect of mines by a separale suit. [594 C-595H] (a) The appellant would be entitled to take possession of a share in such n1ines only as a lessee fron1 the State Government. But the tenns and conditions of the lease would have to be agreed upon between the State Government and the inter- n1ediary or have to be settled by the Mines Tribunal. [595 A~B] (b) ~urther, if an intermediary had opened mines in a corner of a large area and was working it on the date of vesting it V.'Ould not mean that he would be entitled to a mining lease in respect of the entire area. Therefore, the area to be covered by the lease will have to be decided under s. 12 in the light of the provisions of the J\.1ines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. [595 BRC] (c) Moreover, under s. 10 of the Bihar Land Refonns Act, \vhere there is a subsisting lease of mines and minerals comprised in the estate the whole or that part of the estate comprised in such lease, shall be deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the holder of the subsisting lease for the remainder of the term of that lease, and the appellant would not have any right in such mines. (595 C-E] (d) But there is no material on record as to what mines \Vere in operation who among the co-sharers of the appellant were working the mines, and if so to what extent, on the date of the vesting in the State. [595 E] A li t c: D E F G H B ' c D E F G H BASUDEVANAND v. HARIHAR (Alagiriswami, J.) 5 91 CIVIL APPLLLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1709of1%7. From the judgment and decree dated October 11, 1963 of the Patn3' High Court at Patna in Civil Revision Nos. 891, 1080/1081 of 195& and F. A. 926 of 1956, 303 & 378 of 1959 and F.A. 13 & 14 of 1960 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 4th day of June 1959
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.