KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR ANA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HAZARIBAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution claiming that the buildings and lands as set out in the Schedule annexed to the petition and marked "A" (hereinafter referred to as the disputed properties) did not vest in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner No. 1 in his individual capacity was at one time the owner of the disputed properties which lie within Touzi No. 28 of the Collectrate of Hazaribagh. On 29-12-1947 petitioner No. 1 as owner leased out the disputed properties to a Company known as Mineral Development Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the company). The Company book possession of the disputed properties and has been paying rent.

(2.) The real question for determination is, what vested in the State on the publication of the notification under S. 3 and by virtue of the provisions of S. 4(a) of the Act According to Mr. Chatterjee the disputed properties did not vest in the State, whatever else may have. Having regard to the definition of "estate" in the Act, if anything vested in the State on the publication of notification it was the land comprised in the notified estate.

(3.) In our opinion, it is of little consequence in the present case whether the notified estate vested in the State by reason of the publication of the notification under S. 3 or by virtue of the provisions of S. 4 of the Act, because in either case a vesting did take place. Although the word 'land' is used in the definition of 'estate', the provisions of Ss. 4, 5 and 7 show the necessary intention to include something more than the land when an estate vests in the State.