KUSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 19-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-f-
_. 
~ 
KUSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 19, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Celling Area and Acquisition of Surplus 
Land) Act, 1961-s. 32B (as amended by Bihar Act 55of1982)-Returnjiled 
by land holder-In proceedings under the Act, landholder held not possessing c 
surplus land-Final Notification not issued-Order also not challenged-
Amendment of the Act permitting initiation of fresh proceedings-At the 
instance of one person, alleging that the previous return of landholder did 
not disclose full and correct facts, initiation of fresh proceedings-Landholder 
held to be in possession of surplus land by the Authorities-Single Judge as 
well as Division Bench of High Court upholding the finding of the Authorities- D 
On appeal, held: Power under section 32B to initiate fresh proceedings 
could not have been exercised as the provisions came to the statute book 
much after the case of the landholder was over-Failure to issue final 
statement was default in discharge of statut01y duty by the Authorities-
Hence cannot prejudice the landholder-However, since the fresh proceedings E 
were initiated on the ground that the landholder had played fraud, an 
appropriate action can be taken, irrespective of statutory provisions-Matter 
remitted to High Court to decide it under the law as it stood prior to 
amendment of the Act. 
In 1973-74, appellant-landholder filed return under Bihar Land Reforms F 
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 
Alleging that the landholder possessed excess land. Collector issued a draft 
statement under Section 10. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, in 1976 
recorded a finding that the landholder did not possess surplus land and the 
proceedings were required to be dropped. No 'final statement' as required 
under Section 11 was issued or published by the Authority. No appeal was G 
filed against the order of the Deputy Collector. In 1981, the Act was amended 
inter alia permitting initiation of fresh proceedings in certain cases. One 
.. 
'H' thereafter moved an application for intiation of fresh proceedings against 
· the landholder in respect of the return of 1973-74, on the ground that the 
-
95 
H 
-+-
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
., 
" 
A landholder had not disclosed full and correct facts in the return and in fact 
J.. 
the landholder possessed more lands than prescribed under the Ceiling Act. 
Fresh proceedings were initiated in 1993 and it was held that thf landholder 
possessed surplus land and direction was given to take appropriate steps for 
issuance of final statement under Section 11. The appeal thereagainst was 
B 
dismis~ed by the Collector holding that the landholder was in possession of 
excess land. The Revision Petition was also dismissed by Board of Revenue. 
Appellant-landholder filed Writ Petition Single Judge of the High Court held 
that initiation of fresh proceedings were permissible as no final notification 
.,.. 
under Section 11 was issued prior to 1981 amendment. Division Bench of 
High Court confirmed the decision of Single Judge. Hence the pmsent appeal. 
c 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Final statement under Section 11(1) ofBihar Land Reforms 
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ought 
to have been issued immediately or in any case within 'reasonable time'. The 
D authority cannot neglect to do that which the law mandates and requires doing. 
By to issuing consequential final statement under Section 11(1) of the Act, 
authority had failed to discharge its statutory duty. Therefore, such default 
in discharge of statutory duty by the respondents under thf Act cannot 
prejudice the appellant. (Para 10) (100-E-F) 
E 
.; 
1.2. The power under Section 32B of the Act to iriitiate fresh 
proceedings could not have been exercised. Admittedly, Section 32B came on 
the statute book by Bihar Act 55 of 1982. The case of the appellant was over 
much prior to the amendment of the Act and insertion of Section 32B. 
Therefore, the authorities cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of its 
F own default in failure to act in accordance with law and initiate fresh 
proceedings. (Para ll) (100-G-H; 101-A) 
1.3. A man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of 
his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle 
that he who prevents a thing from being done s

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