SMT. LABANYA BALA DEVI AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA SECRETARIAT, PATNA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 07-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. LABANYA BALA DEVI AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA SECRETARIAT, 
PATNA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
I 
Bihdr Land Refonns Act, 1950: Sections 3(1), 4 and 6(J)(b};Raiyati 
C right-Settlement from erstwhile jaminda.,-l,and used for agricuJtUral pur-
poses-Pre-existing right-Whether extinguished and land vested in Govern-
ment. 
The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the appel-
lant bad a Raiyati right over certain plot of land. The Trial Court decreed 
D the suit. On appeal the District Judge held that the land in question stood 
vested in the State under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 
and dismissed the suit. This was confirmed by the High Court. 
In this appeal, it was contended that in 1943 the appellant bad a 
settlement from the erstwhile jamindar of the said land which was used 
E for agricultural purposes and therefore the said land was raiyati land. 
F 
·a 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The saving by Sec. 6(1)(b) of the Bibar Land Reforms Act, 
1950 is only of the land actually used for agricultural purposes in a State 
or a tenure of a lessee or a temporary lessee and directly in his possession 
and cultivated by himself with his own stock by his own servants or by 
hired labour or with hired stock that the land stands excluded and Raiyati 
rights bas been confirmed statutorily subject to the terms contained 
therein. The tank is said to be settled by the land holder in favour of the 
appellant, thereby the tank was not saved. Thus the tank stands vested in 
the State absolutely free from all encumbrances and that, therefore, the 
contract even if any was nullified by non-obstante clause in clause 4. There 
by the pre· existing rights, if any, have been extinguished and stood 
divested. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim any rights on the basis of 
H the agreement which formed basis for declaration sought for. (213-B-C] 
210 
:: 
.. 
'. 
.. 
; 
lABANYADEVl(SMT.)v. STATE 
211 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4124 of A 
1984 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.82 of the Patna High Court 
in AD. No. 76 of 1974. 
K.N. Rai for the Appellant. 
B.B. Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appeal by Special leave arises for the appellate decree No. 76 
of 1974 dated March 18, 1982 of the Division Bench of the High Court at 
Patna. The appellants/plaintiffs laid the suit in the Court of the Subordinate 
Judges in Title Suit No. 23 of 1970 for a declaration that the appellant has 
a Raiyati right over plot No. 1972 & 1973 i.e., tank and tankail situated in 
village Bihulia in Khata No. 61 described in Schedule B of the Plaint and 
for confirmation of possession over the same. Though the trial court by 
decree dated February 21, 1972 decreed the suit holding that the appellant 
has the Raiyati right over the plot described in Schedule B. property and 
for his possession on appeal the Addl. District Judge Dhanbad, By Judg-
ment and decree held that the Scheduled 'B' land stood vested in the State 
under Sec. 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30, 1950 (for short the 'Act) 
accordingly dismissed the suit and in the second appeal it was confirmed 
by the High Court. 
It is contended for the appellant that in 1943 the appellant had a 
settlement from the erstwhile jamindar of the plot described in Schedule 
B land which was used for agricultural purposes and that, therefore, it is 
the raiyati land and the trial court rightly granted the decree. The High 
Court and the Distt. Court had not properly considered the purpose of the 
settlement made to the appellant and accordingly dismissed the suit of the 
appellant. We find no force in the contention, under Sec.3 (1) of the Act 
the State Government has been vested with the power to declare and get 
a notification published in the State Gazette that the estates or tenures of 
a proprietor or tenure holder specified in the notification, have ceased to 
and become vested in the State. On and form the date of the notification 
so published the consequences have been specified in Sec. 4 of the Act. It 
provides that : 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
"Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other land for the time 
being in force or any contract 
on the publication of the 
notification under Sub-s. (1) of Sec. 3 
the following 
consequences shall ensure and s

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