LexUPENDRA NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UPENDRA NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
AUGUST 7, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
La11d Laws:
Bihar Land Refomts Act, 1950 :
S.3(2), 4(hf-Land recorded as Gainnajnw Man i11 Revenue records--
A
B
c
Appellant claiming to have got patta of the land from Zamindar on
11.8. 1951}--()n inqui1y Patta was rejected holding that it was a fraudulent
transaction made to defeat provisions of the Act-Title suit of appellant
dismissed by the cowts below-Held, in view of the fi11dings recorded concur-
re11tly by the authodties under the Act and the civil cowts that the patta came D
to be executed in favour of the appellant after the specified date with a view
to defeat provisions of the Act, the transfer was a fraudulent one-Contentiol!
of the appellant that the Govemment had l!Ot confim1ed the annulment is of
no consequence, as non-confimiation of such an annulmel!t of transfer by
the State Govemment being administrative lapse, it does 11ot clothe the E
appellant with any light at any stage.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3986 of
1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.82 of the Patna High Court F
in SA. No. 311 of 1979.
Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of G
Bihar High Court made in Second Appeal No. 311 of 1979 on April 29,
1982. The admitted facts are that the appellant had in his possession 9
bighas 16 kathas of land bearing S.P. No. 2775/40 under Khata 797, Tauzi
No. 22230 (new) 10828 (old) situated in Mahalia Sikandarpur within the
municipal limits of Muzaffarpur. The said land is a portion of old Plot No. H
353
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
2775 which is the cadestrol survey was recorded as Gairmajrua M,an under
the proprietorship of Khan Bahadur Nawab Sayed Ali Sajjad and others.
He claimed patta _thereunder from the year 1942 given by the said Zamin-
dar, ex-landlord. By operation of Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950 (for short, the 'Act') on and from the date of the notification publish-
B
c
D
E
F
ed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, all the lands stand vested
in the State free from all encumbrances except those lands excluded by
operation of the provisions of Section 4. Section 4(h) of the Act envisages
that :
"The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of
any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land com-
prised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest
in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collec-
tion of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is
satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the fir.I day
of January 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this
Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation
thereunder, the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to
the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer,
disposes the person claiming it and take possession of such proper-
ty on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and
equitable."
An enquiry in this behalf was conducted and it was found that the
patta got by the appellant on August 11, 1950 was a fraudulent transfer in
favour of the appellant to defeat the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it
was rejected and became final. Thereafter, the appellant came to file a title
suit for declaration of title which was dismissed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the appellate Court and in second appeal, the High Court
dismissed it summarily. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Shri L.R. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended
G that though the finding was recorded by the Tribunals and {he civil Court,
the transfer was effected after January 1, 1946, namely, August 11, 1950
with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act; under second proviso of
clause (h) of Section 4 of the Act, the Government had not confirmed such
annulment; so it has not become effective and the courts below have
H
committed grievous error in giving effect to the decision of the Collector
UPENDRANARAIN S!NGHv. STATE
355
under Section 4{h) of the Act. We find no force in the contention. It is true A
that under the proviso no order cancelling or annulling the transfer shall
take effect nor possession taken in pursuance of it unleExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.