LexRAJA SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJA SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATp OF BIHAR & ORS. MAY 5, 1987 B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] c D E F G Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950: ss. 3, 9, 10 and 25-Minerals not exploited by the ex-landlord on date of vesting of the estate-Right of ~ ex-intermediary to get compensation for such minerals. Interpretation of Statutes-Rules of Construction-Statute to be read as a whole and in the context-Statutory rules to be harmoniously read with Statute-statute providing for assumption and enforcement of an existing liability not to be construed as extending that liability or creating new one in absence of clear terms to that effect. '-f Sei:tion 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides for vest- ing of an estate or tenure in the State by notification. Under s. 9 from the date of such vesting all mines comprised in the estate or tenure, as were in operation at the commencement of the Act and were being 1 worked directly by the intermediary were deemed to have been leased to the intermediary and he was entitled to retain possession thereof. Sei:- tion IO provides for vesting of snbsisting leases of mines and minerals. Section 25 provides for computation of compensation payable to the intermediary in respect of royalties on account of mines and minerals or directly working mines comprised in the estate or tenure. Rule 25-E of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 deals with the procedure for -"( determination of the amount of compensation or annuity. The estate of the ex-landlord comprising vast areas of mineral bearing lands was vested in the State by virtue of a notification under s. 3 of the Act with effect from 4th November, 1951. Some part of the said area was being worked by the lessees under the leases granted to them, who paid royalty to him. The ex-landlord died in 1969. His successors-in-interest, the appellants herein, tlled writ petition before the High Court claiming compensation in respect of the coal bearing area having coal reserves vested in the State. The High Court came to the conclusion that the ex-intermediary was not entitled to the compensation as claimed, and H dismissed the petition. 124 RAJA S.N. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 215 In this appeal by certificate, it was contended for the appellants A that where there are minerals which were not tapped and not exploited by the ex-intermediary, acquisition of the source of income for the intermediary would be acquisition of property, that there was no provi- sion for compensation for this purpose in the Act, and the statute was, therefore, exproprietary in nature. For the respondents, it was con- tended that there was no question of expropriation. The property being B not in existence, it was acquisition of a right which might be a source of income and property if tapped, but it was not an existing right. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD 1. A statute must be read as a whole, fairly and reason- C ably. It must be so read, if possible, and warranted by the context to "t-· give effect to the manifest intent of the iramer. So read, it cannot be said that the Blhar Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides for any compensa- tion for the minerals not exploited. That does not make the Act un- constitutional. [232D] -- 2. The Rules and the sections must be harmoniously construed. In the instant case, the legislature was acquiring the estate of an ex- intermediary. For all the existing sources of his income and which were being exploited, compensation has been provided for. But for a right which might become a source of income which had not been exploited, D no compensation has been provided. Where a statute provides for the E assumption and enforcement of an existing right or liability, it will not be construed as extending that liability or creating a new one unless it does so in clear terms. [231F] " · ~ Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 44, page 556, paragraph 904, referred to. F In the instant case there is no question of interpreting any law which will expose the Act to constitutional infirmity. The right was not existing at the time of vesting, no question therefore, arises of depri- ving the ex-intermediary of any right without compensation. (231G] 3. The basic principle of construction of every statute is to find G out what is clearly stated and not to speculate upon latent imponder· ables. The scheme of the Act does not support the appeUant that it i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.