LexSANT SARAN GOSWAMI @ DEOJI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
).· (
l
\
A
SANT SARAN GOSWAMI @ DEOJI
v
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
JANUARY 17, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]
Bihar Land Refonns (Fixation of Land Ceiling & Acquisition) Act,
~
1961-Ss.2(ee) & 32-A-Sevefal Maths under the management of one
Math-Whether to be treated as subsidiary or family of Maths-Not entitled
C to treat its land independent from lands of controlling Mat~eopening of
ceiling proceedings-Not challenged and became final and cannot be allowed
to be raised.
Appellant constituting Baletha Math was in possession of 15.36
acres of land Proceedings were initiated against appellant under the Bihar
D Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act. 1961. The
Deputy Collector by an order dated 15.04.76 held that the appellant was a
separate Math and that the lands held by the appellant could not be
included in the lands of the Dhanauti Math, Dhanauti Math filed an
appeal and further revision to the Board of Revenue.
E
During the pendency of the revision, Section 32-A was brought by
• amendment w.e.f. 06.04.81 and all pending proceedings abated pursuant
thereto. The Deputy Collector initiated suo motu proceedings on 12.08.81
against the appellant and held that Dhanauti Math had several Maths
under its management including the appellant's Math. The ceiling area
F was determined holding that the land was held by Dhanauti Math. The
order of the Dy. Collector was upheld by the appellate court, revisional
court and the High Court.
In appeal to this court it was contended that the reopening of the
proceedings was bad in law as the order of the Dy. Collector dated 15.04.76
G had become final and no proceedings were pending consequent to the
abatement by virtue of Section 32-A. It W"s also contended that the
appellant Math was only subsidiary to Dhanauti Math and could i].Ot be
treated as a 'family' of Dhanauti Math as defined in Section 2(ee) of the
1961 Act and, therefore, the land held by the appellant Math could not be
H included in the land of Dhanauti Math for the purposes of determining
344
,
I
S.S. GOSWAMI v. STATE OF BIHAR
345
the ceiling.
A
lo.;
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Explanation (1) to Section 2(ee) of the Act made it clear
tt~at the word "person" includes any company, institution, trust, associa-
tion or body or individuals, whether incorporated or not. The appellant B
Math was a part of the Dhanauti Math and, therefore, could not be treated
as an independent person. The land belonging to the appellant must be
included with the land of the Dhanauti Math. [347-A, F]
2. The reopening of the proceedings was not challenged in the High c
Court and as such the same could not be raised. Moreover, in computation
proceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of
proceedings. [346-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1216 of
1992.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.84 of the Patna High Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 1241 of 1984.
A. Sharan for the Appellant.
Pramod Swamp, Ms. Niranjana Singh for S.P. Singh for the Respon-
E
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant is in possession of 15.36 acres of land of village Baletha
F
under Siwan Prakhand, State of Bihar, Dhanauti Math of Kabir Panth was
notified under S.10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land
Ceiling and Acquisition) Act 1961, (for short, the Act). When the proceed-
ings were initiated, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by his proceedings
dated 15.4.1976 held that the appellant is a separate Math and that there-
fore, the land held by the appellant could not be included in the lands of G
Dhanauti Math. The Dhanauti Math carried the m,atter in appeal in respect
of other lands and also in further revision to the Board of Revenue. While
..J "
the revision was pending, by Amendment Act Section 32-A was brought
on statute w.e.f. 6.4.1981. The effect of the amendment is that all pending
proceedings stood abated. Thereafter power has been given to start suo
motu ceiling proceedings afresh. In exercise of the power, the Dy. Collec- H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995] 1 S.C.R.
_.A tor, Land Reforms initiated the proceedings on 12.8.81. In those proceed-
- T{gs it was held that Dhanauti Math is having sever~l maths under its
management like Bharatheri Math Maujahidpur Math etc. including the
appellant Math and therefore, all the lands are held by Dhanauti Math.
AccordinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.