Holding

The Supreme Court held that the tank was not agricultural land, was not saved by Section 6(1)(b), and therefore vested in the State, extinguishing any pre‑existing Raiyati rights.

Summary

The appellants filed a suit claiming a Raiyati right over a tank and its surrounding land in Bihulia village, based on a settlement obtained from the former jamindar in 1943. The trial court declared that the appellants held such a right, but the District Judge reversed the decision, holding that the land vested in the State under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a view affirmed by the Patna High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the land was saved by the provision of Section 6(1)(b) of the Act, which preserves Raiyati rights only for lands actually used for agricultural purposes and directly possessed and cultivated by the lessee. The Court found that the tank was not agricultural land and therefore was not covered by the saving clause, resulting in its vesting in the State free of all encumbrances. Consequently, any pre‑existing Raiyati rights were extinguished, and the appellants could not claim ownership. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the tank and its surrounding land qualify as agricultural land saved under Section 6(1)(b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Whether pre‑existing Raiyati rights over the land survive the vesting of the estate in the State under Section 4 of the Act.

Legislation cited

Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 3(1), s. 4, s. 6(1)(b), s. 7-A, s. 7-B

Subjects

Raiyati rightland vestingBihar Land Reforms ActSection 4Section 6(1)(b)agricultural purposepre‑existing rightsstate ownership

Judgment

A SMT. LABANYA BALA DEVI AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA SECRETARIAT,
PATNA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
I
Bihdr Land Refonns Act, 1950: Sections 3(1), 4 and 6(J)(b};Raiyati
C right-Settlement from erstwhile jaminda.,-l,and used for agricuJtUral pur-
poses-Pre-existing right-Whether extinguished and land vested in Govern-
ment.

The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the appel-
lant bad a Raiyati right over certain plot of land. The Trial Court decreed ::
D the suit. On appeal the District Judge held that the land in question stood
vested in the State under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
and dismissed the suit. This was confirmed by the High Court.

In this appeal, it was contended that in 1943 the appellant bad a
settlement from the erstwhile jamindar of the said land which was used
E for agricultural purposes and therefore the said land was raiyati land.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The saving by Sec. 6(1)(b) of the Bibar Land Reforms Act,
F 1950 is only of the land actually used for agricultural purposes in a State
or a tenure of a lessee or a temporary lessee and directly in his possession
and cultivated by himself with his own stock by his own servants or by
hired labour or with hired stock that the land stands excluded and Raiyati
rights bas been confirmed statutorily subject to the terms contained
therein. The tank is said to be settled by the land holder in favour of the
·a appellant, thereby the tank was not saved. Thus the tank stands vested in
the State absolutely free from all encumbrances and that, therefore, the
contract even if any was nullified by non-obstante clause in clause 4. There
by the pre· existing rights, if any, have been extinguished and stood
divested. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim any rights on the basis of
H the agreement which formed basis for declaration sought for. (213-B-C]
210
lABANYADEVl(SMT.)v. STATE 211

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4124 of A
1984

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.82 of the Patna High Court
in AD. No. 76 of 1974.

K.N. Rai for the Appellant. B

. B.B. Singh for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appeal by Special leave arises for the appellate decree No. 76 c
of 1974 dated March 18, 1982 of the Division Bench of the High Court at
Patna. The appellants/plaintiffs laid the suit in the Court of the Subordinate
Judges in Title Suit No. 23 of 1970 for a declaration that the appellant has
'.
a Raiyati right over plot No. 1972 & 1973 i.e., tank and tankail situated in

.. village Bihulia in Khata No. 61 described in Schedule B of the Plaint and D
for confirmation of possession over the same. Though the trial court by
decree dated February 21, 1972 decreed the suit holding that the appellant
has the Raiyati right over the plot described in Schedule B. property and
for his possession on appeal the Addl. District Judge Dhanbad, By Judg-
ment and decree held that the Scheduled 'B' land stood vested in the State
under Sec. 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30, 1950 (for short the 'Act)
E
accordingly dismissed the suit and in the second appeal it was confirmed
by the High Court.

It is contended for the appellant that in 1943 the appellant had a
settlement from the erstwhile jamindar of the plot described in Schedule F
B land which was used for agricultural purposes and that, therefore, it is
;
the raiyati land and the trial court rightly granted the decree. The High
Court and the Distt. Court had not properly considered the purpose of the
settlement made to the appellant and accordingly dismissed the suit of the
appellant. We find no force in the contention, under Sec.3 (1) of the Act
the State Government has been vested with the power to declare and get G
a notification published in the State Gazette that the estates or tenures of
a proprietor or tenure holder specified in the notification, have ceased to
and become vested in the State. On and form the date of the notification
so published the consequences have been specified in Sec. 4 of the Act. It
provides that : H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A "Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other land for the time
being in force or any contract on the publication of the
notification under Sub-s. (1) of Sec. 3 the following
consequences shall ensure and shall be deemed always fo have
ensured, namely : -
B
(a) Such estate or tenure including the interest of the proprietor
or. tenure-holder in any building or part of building comprised 1n
such estate or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for
the collection of rent of such a State or tenure and his interests in
••
trees, forests, fisheries, Jalkars, hats, bazars (mela) and ferries and
c all other sairati interests, as also his interest in all sub-soil including
any rights in mines and minerals, whether been worked on not,
inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, com-
prised in such estate or tenure (pther then the interests of raiyats
or under raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest

..
D absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and such
proprietor tenure- holders shall cease to have any interests in such
estate or other the interest expressly saved by or under the
provisions of this Act".

By operation of Sec. 4 such estate or tenures including the interest
E of the proprietor or tenure holder in such estate or tenure and his interest
in trees, forests, fisheries, Jalkars, Hats Bazars (mela) and ferries and all
other sairati interests as also his interests in all sub-soil including any rights
in mines and minerals etc., other than the interest of a raiyats or under
raiyats shall w.e.f. the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the free from all
F encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure holder shall ceases to have
any interests in such estate or other then the interests expressly saved by
or under the provisions of the Act. Sec. 6(1)(b) is one of the savings which
postulates that "On and from the date of vesting all lands used for agricultural
or horticultural purposes which were in khas possession of an intermediary
G ·on the date of such vesting, including. in clause (b) that lands used for
agricultural and held in the direct possession of a temporary
lesses 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 Sects. 7-A and 7-B be deemed to be
settled by the State with such intermediary and he shall be entitled to retain
H possession thereof and hold them as a raiyats under the State having
LAB.ANYA DEVI (SM1)v. STAIB 213

occupancy rights in respect of such lands subject to the payment of such A
fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the Collector in the
prescribed manner thereby. The saving by Sec. 6(1)(b) is only of the lands
actually used for agricultural purposes in a State or a tenure of a leassee
or a temporary lessee and directly in his possession and cultivated by
himself with his own stock by his own servants or by hired labour or with
hired stock that the land stands excluded and raiyati rights has been B
confirmed statutorily subject to the terms co~tained there in. The tank is
said to be settled by the land holder in favour of the appellant thereby the
tank was no saved. Thus the tank stands vested in the state absolutely free
from all encumbrances and that, therefore, the contract even, if any, was
nullified by non-obstante clause in clause 4. Thereby the pre-existing rights, C
if any, have been extinguish~d and stood divested. The appellant cannot
claim any rights on the basis of the said agreement whi~h formed basis for
declaration sought for. Under those circunistances the trial court is clearly
in error in granting the declaration. The District court rightly reversed the
decree, the ·High Court though had not gone into this question, for the D
reasons we set out, we confirm the decree and judgment of the High Court
but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs. r-•·

G.N. Appeal dismissed.