RAJNI RANJAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three cases common question of law arise and they are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. In these cases proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 were started on 1.10.1970. By order dated 15.4.1971 it was held that the petitioners did not hold land in excess of the then ceiling area. It is to be observed that when the orders were passed Bihar Act 1 of 1973 had not been enacted. Consequently, the decision in these cases was on the basis of the relevant provisions of Act 12 of 1962. After the enactment of Bihar Act 1 of 1973 as amended fresh proceeding was started in these cases separately, giving rise to Ceiling Case Nos. 8 of 1973 -74, 6 of 1973 -74 and 5 of 1973 -74. The petitioners challenged the validity of these proceedings. Their contention is that since in the earlier proceedings the petitioners were held to possess lands within ceiling area, a fresh proceeding could not be started as the orders passed on the earlier occasion must be deemed to have been passed under the provisions of Act I of 1973 which came into force retrospectively from 9.9.1970. A fresh proceeding, it was contended under the provisions of Bihar Act I of 1973 as amended by Bihar Act IX of 1973, was barred by the principles of res judicata. Reliance was placed in this connection on the decisions in (1) C.W.J.C. 1040 of 1974 (Naliniranjan Singh & others V. State of Bihar) decided on 15.11.1976, which it was pointed out was a case on identical facts.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the State that the decision in Naliniranjan Singh's case, although a Bench decision was not a correct decision and it should be reconsidered by a larger Bench. It was further contended that in any event, in view of the Sec. 19 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act 1976 (Bihar Act XXII of 1976) the aforesaid Bench decision of this Court was inapplicable and there could not be now any bar to initiation of a proceeding in the circumstances of the present case.

(3.) It is first necessary to appreciate the real decision and the basis of the decision in Naliniranjan Singh's case. Before proceeding, however, Sec. 13 of Act I of 1973 and the amendment brought about by Act XXII of 1976 should be quoted: Sec. 13 of Act I of 1973 is as follows: - -