LexRAJA BAHADUR GIRIWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH versus DUKHU LAL DAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ,, • i A RAJA RAHADUR GJRIWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH B v. DUKHU LAL DAS & ORS. A11ri/ 20, 1967 IK. N. WANCHOO, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJJ Bihar Land Reforms Act,' 1950 (No. 30 of 1950), ss. 3 011d ~ ,Votification ve.\·ting estate pub/ishttt in Official Gateltc and not in ne\vs .. papers-Effect-Date of vesting. c The plaintiff-respondents obtained a lease from defendant 1-appel· lant, of certain rights in the estate of defendant 1, and paid him the k:ise-money. By a notification published in the Official Gazette, th• estate of defendant I-appellant was vested in the defendant 2..State under D E 1he Bihar Land Reforms Act. Thereupon, the State called upon the plaintiff to pay the lease-money to it, which the plaintiff did under pro- tC'>t. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ihe refund of the lease-money from either of the defendants. which he had been forced to pay to each nf the defendants, The trial cmtrt decreed the suit against the State. The State appealed, and the High Court held defendant 1 was liable to refunl1 the money Hnd set aside the decrc"' against the Stalt:. In appeal. thi' Court HELD : Defendant I had the right to collect the lease-money and not the State. There was no publication in two issu~ of t\\'O newspaper!;. as required hy " 3(2) of the Act when the notification was published in the Official Uuzette. This omission brought ahout non·compliance with the manda· torv provision of s. 3(2) requiring publication in at least two issues of two newspapers with the result that s, 5(a) of the Act did not become applicable at that time and, consequently. defendant No. l continued to he the proprietor and was not divested of his ri~hts in the estate by this notification at that stage. On the record of this case. no material \Vas forthcoming to show that the notification \Vas ever published in any n~,,·spapers even subsequently; but. in the lo\\o'er courts, the case proceeded on the has is of the admission , by defendant I himself that he \\'as dispo:-;scsscd on a Jatcr date and it \Vas with effect fron1 that later d:ttc he was divested of his proprietory rights. Consequently. he had the, full right to grant the lease to the plaintiff on the relevant earlier date :ind the rights under that lease were exercised by the plaintiff during the period when defendant 1 Wl1' still the proprietor, 1772 H-773 DI The direction in sub..:s. (!) of ~. 3 of the Act for publication of tile G nn1ification in :.1t lt.!ast tv.'o issues of l\\'O ne\vspapcr"i \V:'l'I mandatory and Ol)t merely directory. The notification h<u.I a far rcnching effect. It de- prived the owner of his vested rights as a proprietor of the estate and YCstcd those rights in the State Government. This alteration in the ri~hts was to 'he brought about by notifications issued in respect of int.li- yidual estates of a proprietor nnd it appears that it \\'<IS hccnusc of thi.,. 1n1portance of the notification that the legislature did not consider it H ,ufficient that the notification should be puhJi,hcll in the Official Gazette only. If the intention of the legislature was that the publication in the r1ro newspaper;; neell not he taken into :.1ccount in order to attract tho: provision..; of s. 4(a) of the Act. thi"i intention could 11av~ hcc11 clc:1rly l'.\presscd hy laying <lo\\'tl in th~ principal part l)f '· 4 ihclf that lhL' t9Sur,CI,67, ; 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 s.c.R. coqsequences were to ensue "9n the publication of the notification under >ub-s. (1) of s. 3 in the Official Gazette. By not qualifying the word -·publication" in this section with tile adjectival clause "m the Official Gazette", the Legislature must be held to have clearly indicated that the notification must be published fully in accordance with the manner laid down in sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Act. So far as the date of vesting is concerned, its definition could not naturally depend on all the five minimum publications envisaged in sub-rS. (2) of s. 3. There was no certainty that the publication of the notification in either of those two issues of the. newspapers. would be on the same date on which the notifi- cation is published iv. 'the Official Gazette nor could there be any certainty that in the two issues of the other newspaper also, the notification would be published on the same date. In these circumstances, it was obviously necessary to lay -dO\\'n the- exac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.