STATE OF BIHAR versus BISHNU CHAND LAL CHAUDHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 08-01-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. 
. ' 
,, 
527 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
BISHNU CHAND LAL CHAUDHARY AND ORS. 
8 January, 1985 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.) 
Tortious liability of State for damages for trespass and unauthorised 
intereference by it. with the proprietary interest ·and negli'gtnct-Effect of 
Section 31 of the Bihar State ManQgement of Estates and Tenures Act,· 1949._ 
A.ct done in 'goodfaith'-Whether Section 31 of the Ac1 read with Section 4 (22) 
of the Bihar and Orissa General Clau,1,e5 Act, 1917 protects such State action 
against any alleged claim for loss by wilful default or gross negligence. 
Ely a Notification dated November 19, 1949 issued under section 3(1) of 
the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XX! 
of 1949), as duly certified by the President under clause (6) of Article 31 of the 
Constitution, the estate of the Prithwi Chand Lall Choudhary caUed "Raj 
Nazarganj" spread over the District of Purnea' and some other districts in the 
State of Bihar as also in the state of West Bengal, was taken under the manage-
ment of the Bihar State Government. One J.P. Mukherjee who was the Additional 
Collector of Darbhanga was appointed as the Manager of the estate. Jn the 
meanwhile. the Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga, Sir Kameshwar Singh filed a 
civil suit challenging the vaJidity of the Act as his estate was also similarly 
notified under the said section. The Patna High Court withdrew that Suit to its 
own file Jor being tried in its Extra-ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and by 
its judgm.ent dated June 5, 1950 reported as MD. Sir Kameshwar Singh V. 
State of .Bihar, ILR 29 Patna 790. declaring the Act to be 11/tra vires and who1ly 
void, issued an injunction ~straining the State Government from enforcing the 
Act. Against that judgment the State of Bihar preferred an appeal to the Supreme 
Court. However, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court, Prithwi Chand 
Lall Choudhary demanded on June 9, 1950 that he should be put back Jn posses-
sion of the estate whose rnanagement'had been takeO over from him. On July 3, 
1950 the then c'ollector by his Jetter Informed Choudhary that the GoYemment 
had decided to relinquish charge of the estates and tenures and that Choudhary 
should co-operate in taking over charge by July 15, 1950. On July 6, 1950 the 
Government cancelled the Notification issued under section 3(1) of the Act. The 
charge of collection papers' was handed over by the middle of July, 1950 to 
'Cl10udhary. The abstracts and synopsis of accounts were given on AugUst 7, 
1950. About Rs. 1,46,000/liad been collected on behalf of the estate during the 
Government's management. After the estate was thus handed over-to hilJl, 
Choudhary filed a suit on September 21, 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate 
Judge,Pmnea, for damages't>f Rs. 2,00,000 for wrongful and illegal interference 
with bis estates and tenures and for other consequenlial reUefs. 
A 
B 
c 
.n 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
. )) 
F 
G 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 2 s.c.R. 
Broadly the grounds of the claim were (a) that due to gross negligence 
and wilful default the appellant herein, contravened the provisions of section 
3(1) in notifying and taking possession of part only of Choudhary's intmst in 
Estates and Tenures and in omitting to notify other parts of his Estates and Tenu .. 
res on the first occasion when the Notification dated November 19, 1949 was 
issued the Government was unabk to realise all the rents and other dues, (b) that 
due to wrong Notification and omission to no~ify atl parts of his Estates and 
Tenures and a1so on acCount of ama1gamated rentals maintained by the Respon~ 
dent in respect of his estates and tenures he could not fully realies the balan.cc 
share of unnotified. estates and tenures, (c) that certain rents and decress had 
been allowed to become barred by time, (d) that on account of non-pay-
ment of Agricultural Income Tax and consequent 
imposition of penalty 
· which was no doubt reduced to Rs. 2,000 on appeal the Estate suffered a loss of 
Rs. 12,000 and, (e) that on account of issue of wrong collection certificates by 
, Collector and his staff the respondent had suffered some Joss which was yet to be 
ascertained. It was alleged that the action of the appellant suffered from negli-
gence, bad faith and malice and the appellant alongwith its Manager as tort-
feasor was jointly and severally for all such losses suffered by him. The appel-
lant traversed all the material alleg

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