LexTHAKUR MANMOHAN DEO AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
695
THAKUR MANMOHAN DEO AND ANOTHER
1960
V.
September I9,·
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.
(AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Ghatwali Tenure-Government ghatwalis-Applicability of
Bihar La1td Reforms Act-Legislative competence-Pith and sub-
stance of legislation-Bengal Regulation, r8r4 (Regulation 29 of
r8r4)-Bihar Land Reforms Act, r950 (Bihar 30 of r950), ss. 2(0)
(q) (r), 23 (I) {fl, 32(4).
The appellants were holders of ghatwali tenure called
Rohini apd Pathrole ghatwalis and were governed by Bengal
Regulation XXIX of 1814. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
was enacted-by the Bihar State Legislature and came into force
on September 25, 1950. In suits instituted by the appellants
the question was raised as to whether under the provisions of
the Act the State could acquire their ghatwalis, They claimed
(1) that th.e Act was not applicable to the Government ghatwali
tenure~ like Rohini and Pathrole ghatwalis which could not be
acquired by the State under s. 3 of the Act, in view of the defini-
tion clause ins. 2 and ss. 23 (1) (f) and 32(4), (2) that the Act
did not purport to repeal Bengal Regulation XXIX of 1814 an!i
inasmuch as the said Regulation dealt with special tenures, the
special law enacted with regard to such tenures would not be
affected by the general law with regard to land reforms as
embodied in th.e Act, and (3) that, in any case, ghatwali tenures,
being of a quasi-military nature, must be held to. fall under
Entries l and 2 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Con-
stitution of India and, therefore, the Act was outside the com-
petence of the State Legislature.
Held: (1) that all ghatwali tenures including government
ghatwalis came within the definition clause in s. 2 of the Bihar
Land ~eforms f'.ct, 1950, and that ss. 23(1_) (f) and 3.2(4), though
they might be mapphcable to the ghatwah tehures m question"
did not have the effect of excludmg such tenures from the opera-
tion of the other provisions of the Act ;
(2) that the Act in pith and substance related to acquisition
of property and was covered by Entry 36, List II, Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution and had no relation to Entries 1
- and 2 of List I. Consequently, the State Legislature was com-
•. petent to enact the Act ;
89
1960
T/i(Jkur
1\fan111ohan Deo
v.
State of Bil1ur
696
SUPRE:\1E COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Tlze State of Bihar v. Mahar•jadhiraja Sir .Kameshwar Singh
of D11rbhat1ga and Others, (1952] S.C.R. 898, followed.
(3) that the principle that a special law relating to special
tenure is not affected by a subsequent general law of land
reforms had no application to the Act which in pith and sub-
stance related to acquisition of property and no question of the
repeal of Regulation XXlX of 1814 arose.
Raja Suriya l'al Singh '" 'the Stair of U. I'. alid Another,
(1952] S.C.R. !056, applied.
CrvrL APPELLATE Junrsnrr.TroN: Ch·il App,.a\8
:"\os. 273 and 274 of 1955.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated Decem-
ber 10, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Appeals from
Original Decree Nos. 309 and 310 of 1954.
L. K. Jlia, J.C. Sinha, S. Mustafi and R. R. Biswas,
for the appellants.
.
'
Lal Narayan Sinha, Bajrang Sahai and R: C. Prasad,
for the respondents
1960. September 19. The ,Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
s. K. Da' J.
S. K. DAS J.-These two appeals on a certificate
granted by the High Court of Patna. a.re from the
judgment and decree of the said High Court dated
December 10, 1954. By the said judgment and decree
the High Court dismissed two appeals which a.rose out
of two suits, Title Suit no. 42 of 1950 and Title Suit
No. 23 of 1952, which were tried together and dis-
missed with costs by the learned Subordinate Judge
of Deoghar.
The plaintiffs of those two suits are the appellants
before us.
One of the appellants Thakur Manmohan
Deo was the holder of a ghatwali tenure commonly
known as the Rohini gha.twali, situate within the sub-
division of Deoghar in the district of the Santal Par-
ga.nas. The other appellant Tikaitni Faldani Kuma.ri
was the holder of the Pathrole gha.twa.li also situa.tf-
in the same sub-division. Doth these gha.twa.li tenures
were formerly known a.s Birbh um ghatwa.lis and wern
governed by Benge.I Regulation XXIX of 1814.
In
the year 1950 was enacted the Bihar Laud Reforms Act
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.