STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER versus UMESH JHA

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 03-05-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS, 
687 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UMESH JHA 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, 
M. HrnAYATULLAH, J. C; SHAH and 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Land Reform-Vesting of estate in the State-Enactment em· 
powering collector to set aside anticipatory settlement-Constitu· 
tional validity-Amendment-Effect-Bihar Land Reforms Act, 
r950 (Bihar 30 of r950), as amended by Bihar Land Reforms 
(Amendment) Act, I959 (Bihar I6 of z959), s. 4(h)-Constitution of 
India, Arts. I4, I9, 31, JIA. 
Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, as 
amended by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959. 
which empowers the Collecfor to annul anticipatory transfers of 
land designed to defeat the object of the Act, is protected by 
Art. 31A of the Constitution although it does not by itself pro-
vide for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any 
rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of any 
such rights and its constitutional validity cannot be questioned 
under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution since the Act of 
which it is an integral part, is itself directed to that end and is 
protected by that Article. 
Thakur Raghubir Singh v. State of Ajmer, [1959) Supp. I 
S.C.R. 478, applied. 
On a true construction of s. 3 of the Amending Act, the 
second proviso to s. 4(h) cannot be retrospective in operation 
and therefore, in respect of an order of annulment made by the 
Collector before the Amendin·g Act came into force the previous 
sanction obtained from the State Government would be suffi. 
cient, but subsequent confirmation by the State Government 
would be necessary in the case of an order made after the 
Amending Act came into force. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
425of1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Februa-
ry 21, 1956, of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judi-
cial Case No. 53 of 1955. 
B. K. P. Sinha and D. P. Singh, for the appellants. 
L. K. Jha and R. 0. Prasa,d,, for the respondent. 
1961. May 3. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
May 3. 
State of Bihar 
\', 
Umesh .J ha 
Sttbba Rao J. 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
SuBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by certificate raises 
the question of the construction of s. 4(h) of the Bihar 
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) (hereinafter 
referred to as the Act),. as amended by the Bihar 
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Bihar Act 16 
of 1959) (hereinafter called the Amel1ding Act). 
The facts giving ri~e to the appeal lie in a small 
compass. Plots Nos. 383 and 1033 are tanks in village 
Lakshmipur alias 'l'arauni in the District of Dar-
bhanga. The respondent claims to have taken settle-
ment of the said plots in the year 1943 from the land-
lords of Raghopur Estate of which the said plots 
formed a part. After the coming into force of the Act, 
the said Estate vested in the St.at~ of Bihar. There-
after, one Sheonandan Jha and some other villagers 
of Lakshmipur filed a petition before the Collector 
alleging that the alleged settlement was not true, and 
that in fact the settlement was nominally effected 
only after January 1, 1946. The Additional Collector, 
Darbhanga, in exercise of the powers conferred on 
him under s. 4(h) of the Act, held that the said settle-
ment was actually made after January 1, 1946, and 
that it was only a paper transaction; having annul-
led the said settlement, the Additional Collector, Ly 
his order dated January 18, 1955, called upon the 
respondent to give up possession of the said plots by 
January 30, 1955. 
Aggrieved by the said order, the 
respondent filed a petition in the High Court of Judi-
cature at Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for 
a rule in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any 
other appropriate writ cancelling the order of the 
Additional Collector dated January 18, 1955, and res-
training the appellants from interfering with his pos-
session of the said two plols. That petition came to 
be decided by a division bench of the High Court; 
and the learned Judges by·their order dated February 
21, 1956; held that the Additional Collector had no 
jurisdiction to entertain n,nd decide the question whe-
ther the settkmont, which was prima facie shown to 
have been made before ,Jarnrnry I, 1946, was actually 
made after that date. On the basis of that finding, 
the order of the Additionn,l Collector was set aside. 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
689 
The State of Bihar and the Additional Collector of 
Darbhanga have preferred 

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