BRIGHU NATH SAHAY SINGH AND ORS.versusMD. KHALILUR RAHMAN AND ORS.

             BRIGHU NATH SAHAY SINGH AND ORS.                                    A
                            v.
              MD. KHALILUR RAHMAN AND ORS.

                          SEPTEMBER 4, 1995

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ]                                 B

      Bihar Land Refonns Act, 1950:

      Ss.2(k), 3, 4, and 6-Agricultural lands-Khas Possession-Suit by
intemiediaries for-Held, defendants being in self-cultivation, intennediaries,
cannot claim any right as they were not in khas possession of lands which
                                                                                 c
vested in State under s.4.

      The appellants, the erstwhile intermediaries, filed a suit for posses-
sion over the land in dispute claiming themselves to be the proprietors
thereof. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court affirmed D
the decree, but the High Court, in the second appeal, dismissed the claim
of the plaintiffs holding that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 having
come into force on 25.9.1950, the plaintiffs had no title to the property and
consequently they could not recover possession from the defendants. Ag-
grieved, the plaintiffs filed the appeal by special leave.
                                                                                 E
      Dismissing the appeal, this Court

       HELD : 1.1. Sections 2(k), 4 and 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950 clearly envisage that the intermediary must, as on the date of vesting,
be in possession of the land used for agricultural purpose or horticulture
purpose as a tenure holder by cultivating such land or carrying on hor-          F
ticulture operations thereon by himself with his own stock or by his own
servants or by hired labour or with hired stock. (318-B]

      1.2. In view of the findings recorded by the courts below that the
respondents have been in self-cultivation of the land, the appellants cannot     G
claim any rights as they were not in khas possession of the lands vested in
the State under s.4 of the Act. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim to
be in khas possession of the lands. (318-C]

      1.3. In view of the notification issued by the State Government
acquiring the lands in question by publication of the notification under s.4 H
                                    315
    316                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   in the Gazette, the said lands have been vested in the State free from all
    encumbrances but subject to the provision of the Act from the date of the
    notification viz. january 26, 1995. The rights of the appellants, if any, on
    the date of the vesting, i.e. January 26, 1955, shall cease in them and shall
    stand vested in the State free from all encumbrances subject to the rights,
    if any, held by the contesting respondents that would be decided by the
B   Government in an appropriate form. [317-B; 318-D]

         Labanya Bala v. State of Biha1~ Patna Secretaliat, Patna &Anr., [1994]
    Supp. 3 SCC 725, relied on.

C           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3689 of
    1984.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.83 of the Patna High Court
    in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 132 of 1973.

D           Tapas Ray and D.P. Mukherjee for the Appellants.

        M. Quamaruddin, Feroze Ahmed, Ms. M. Quamaruddin and Ms. R.
    Begum for the Respondent Nos. 1-6, 9 & 11.

            B.B. Singh for S'tate.
E
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           This appeal by special leave arise from the judgment and decree
    dated November 7, 1983 of the Patna High Court made in A.AD. No.132
f   of 1973. The appellants claimed themselves to be the proprietors of the
    land of 4 Bighas, 15 Kathas 10 Dhurs of an old Tauzi No. 1298 (New Tauzi
    No. 8655) situate in Saraunja village in District Begusarai in Bihar. Their
    plea was that they had title to and were in possession of the said land and
    that the respondents have no right to the possession of the said land. The
G   Trial Court decreed the suit for possession holding that they had the title.
    On appeal, it was confirmed but in the second appeal, the High Court
    reversed the same holding that after the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
    (for short, 'the Act') had come into force on September 25, 1950, the
    appellants had no title to the property and, consequently, they cannot
    recover possession from the respondents. Thus, this appeal by special
H   leave.
                  B.N. SAHAYv. KHALILUR RAHMAN                           317

      Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on December 8, 1994,         A
Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State, has placed before us the
notification issued by the State Government acquiring the lands in question
by publications of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the
Gazette. Consequently, it is clear that the lands in question have been
vested in the state free from all encumbrances but subject to the provision    B
of the Act from the date of the notification, viz., January 26, 1955.

      The question thus arises whether the appellants can claim title to the
property and recover possession thereof from the contesting respondtnts.
The effect of the vesting under the Act was considered by this Court in
Labanya Bala (Smt.) v. State of Bihar Patna Secretmiat, Patna and Anr., C
[1994] Supp. 3 SCC 725. It was held that by operation of Section 4 such
estates or tenures including the interests of the proprietor in such an estate
or tenure and his interests in trees forests, fisheries etc. and all other sairati
interests as also his interest in all sub-soil, rights including any rights in
mines and minerals etc. other then the interests of the raiyats or under- D
raiyats shall with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the state
free from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall
cease to have any interest in such estate or tenure other than the interests
expressly saved by or under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act which
provides that "on and from the date of vesting, all lands used for agriculture
or horticulture purposes which were in khas possession of an intermediary E
on the date of such vesting, including land used for agriculture and held in
direct possession of a temporary lessee of an estate or tenure and cultivated
by himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or
with hired stock .... shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 7-A and 7-B
be deemed to be settled by the State with such intermediary and he shall F
be entitled to retain possession thereof and hold them a raiyat under the·
State having occupancy rights in respect of such lands subject to the
payment of such fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the
Collector in the prescribed manner."

     Khas possession has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Act G
which reads as under :

        "Khas possession" with reference to the possession of a proprietor
        of any land used for agricultural or horticultural purposes means
        the possession of such proprietor or tenure holder by cultivating      H
    318                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            such lands or carrying on horticultural operations thereon himself
             with his own stock or by his own servants by hired labour or with
             hired stock."

          A reading of Section 2(k) with Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, clearly
    envisages that the intermediary must, as on the date of vesting, be in
B   possession of the land used for agricultural purpose or horticulture pur-
    pose as a tenure holder by cultivating such land or carrying on horticulture
    operations thereon by himself with his own stock or by his own servants or
    by hired labour or with hired stock.

          In view of the findings recorded by the court below that the respon-
c   dents have been in self cultivation of the land, the appellants cannot claim
    any rights as they were not in khas possession of the lands vested in the
    State under s.4 of the Act. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim to be in
    Khas possession of the lands in question. As a .consequence, they cannot
    claim any rights in the land. The rights of the appellants, if any, on the date.
D   of the vesting, i.e., January 26, 1955, Shall cease in them and shall stand
    vested in the State free from all encumbrances subject to the rights, if any,
    held by the contesting respondents that would be decided by the Govern-
    ment in an appropriate form.

           The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.