GIRIWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH Vs. DUKHU LAL DAS DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question of interpretation of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (No. 30 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which came into force initially on 11th September, 1950. On 12th March, 1951, the Act was declared void by the High Court at Patna on the ground that its provisions violated Article 14 of the Constitution. On 18th June, 1951, the Constitution First Amendment Act came into force. Thereafter, on 6th November, 1951, a notification was issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act in respect of the property of defendant No. 1 (appellant in this appeal) declaring that the estates of defendant No. 1 had passed to and become vested in the State. The notification was published in the Official Gazette of Bihar on 14th November, 1951. It is disputed whether it was also published in any newspapers at that time. Defendant No. 1, however, continued in possession of the estates. On 12th April, 1952, defendant No. 1 granted a lease to the plaintiff (now represented by respondents 1 to 9 in this appeal) for three years for collection of Bidi leaves in land situated in the estate of defendant No. 1. It is common ground that collection of Bidi leaves starts from 1st May and ends about the 15th of June, so that, for the year 1952, the plaintiff was to collect Bidi leaves between 1-5-1952 and 15-6-1952. Under the terms of the lease, the plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 22,500 each year to defendant No. 1 and was, in addition, required to furnish a sum of Rs. 7, 500 as security. For the year 1952 the plaintiff did pay the sum of Rs. 30,000 to defendant No. 1. On 5th May, 1952, this Court held that the Act was valid and constitutional. On 12th June, 1952, the lease dated 12th April, 1952 was registered. On the very next day, on 13th June, l952, a Proclamation was issued by the State Government, defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 10 in this appeal), stating that the estates of defendant No. 1 had been taken over by the Government under the Act. On 21st November, 1952, defendant No. 2 gave a notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the lease granted to him by defendant No. 1 shouldn't be cancelled. On 18th April, 1953, the plaintiff was informed by defendant No. 2 that as an existing lessee he may continue in possession till final orders of the Government are passed. On 2nd May, 1953, another notice was given by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff that unless the plaintiff paid to defendant No. 2 the lease money for the previous year 1952, he will not get the lease for the year 1953. Thereupon, under protest, the plaintiff paid the lease money to defendant No. 2 for both the years 1952 and 1953. On 4th June, 1954, the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 20 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act") came into force. The effect of this amendment will be noticed hereafter. On 31st January, 1955, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a degree against either defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2 for the two sums of Rs. 7,500 which he had deposited as security, and Rs. 22,500 which he had been forced to pay to each of the two defendants. On 28th June, 1957, the trial Court decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 7,500 only against defendant No. 1 and for the sum of Rs. 22,500 against defendant No. 2. On 14th October, 1957 defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the High Court and on 13th June, 1958, cross-objections were Bled on behalf of defendant No. 1 as well as the plaintiff. The High Court decided the appeal on 1st November, l961 holding that defendant No. 1 had no rights under which he could grant the lease to the plaintiff and was, therefore liable to refund not only the sum of Rs. 7,500 furnished as security, but also the sum of Rs. 22,500 which he had reaused from the plaintiff as lease money for the year 1952. The decree of the trial Court against defendant No. 2 for Rs. 22,500 was set aside, as defendant No. 2 was held entitled to realise the lease money even for the year 1952. Thereupon, defendant No. 1 has come up to this Court in this appeal on certificate granted by the High Court.

(2.) In this appeal, learned counse1 for defendant No. 1 stated that he was no longer challenging the decree in so far as it directs payment of Rs. 7, 500 to the plaintiff by way of refund of the security amount which has been furnished. It was conceded that at least with effect from 13th June, 1952 defendant No. I was no longer claiming the rights of ownership in the estate, and since he had already received the lease money of Rs. 22,500 for the year 1952 from the plaintiff the security was no longer required. Consequently, in this appeal we are only concerned with the question whether, for the year 1952, the lease money was payable to defendant No. 1 or to defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff, and this question obviously depends on whether defendant No.1 was still the owner of the estate when he gave the lease to the plaintiff on 12th April 1952 and continued to be so until 13th June, 1952, or whether he had ceased to he the owner of the property with effect from 14th November, 1951, and the property from that date vested in defendant No 2. On this aspect, various pleas were taken by defendant No. 1 for urging that he continued to be the owner and was not divested of the property with effect from 14th November, 1951; but we need deal with only one single ground which we consider settles the point in favour of defendant No. 1.

(3.) The ground on which we think defendant No. I should succeed is that when defendant No. 2 issued the declaration dated 6th November, 1951, that declaration was published as a notification in the Official Gazette of Bihar only and not in two issues of two newspapers. To appreciate the effect of this omission, the relevant provisions of the Act and the effect of subsequent amendments made by the Amending Act may be explained. Section 3 and part of Section 4 of the Act which are relevant for this purpose, as they were enacted initially in the year 1950 are reproduced below :-