Jharkhand High Court
Md. Rustam Ansari & Others vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ... on 23 April, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.298 of 2016
Md. Rustam Ansari & Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Harshit Pradhan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
---
29/23rd April 2025
1. During the course of argument, it revealed that the schedule of the
property consisted of two parts i.e. Schedule-A(a) and Schedule-A(b). So
far as Schedule-A(a) is concerned, the same is relating to tank and so far
as Schedule-A(b) is concerned, the same is relating to land. It also
transpired that the Hukumnama on the basis of which the appellants are
claiming the property was also supported by the returns filed by the ex-
zamindar. The properties consisted of tanks as well as land. So far as tank
is concerned, both the learned courts have taken consistent view that tank
stood vested in the State by virtue of Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act.
So far as land is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court although held
that the Hukumnama was genuine but did not return any finding with
respect to the land covered under Schedule-A(b) relating to Khata No. 23
Plot No. 77 area 0.17 acres and Plot No. 103 area 0.08 acres total 0.25
acres-khet.
2. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on framing
of additional substantial question of law. Being satisfied, the additional
substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the aforesaid
premise is as follows: -
Whether the learned first appellate court, in spite of
holding that the Hukumnama was valid in the eyes of law,
erred in not considering that the property covered under
the Schedule-A(b) of the plaint did not vest upon coming
into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act?
3. Since the additional substantial question of law has been framed
today, the learned counsel for the parties have requested for some time to
advance their arguments on this point also.
4. So far as 1st substantial question of law is concerned, the learned
counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgments passed by this
Court in the Case of Dwarka Gorhi vs. State of Bihar reported in 1964
BLJR 66 to submit that the term "encumbrance" has not been defined
under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act and therefore the
definition of term "encumbrance" from Bihar Tenancy Act can be taken
into consideration. He has submitted that the property involved in this
case was used for the purposes of irrigation of the agricultural land of the
appellants, therefore, there was no encumbrance on the property and
consequently three tanks involved in this case covered under Schedule-
A(a) did not vest with the State.
5. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the
property involved in this case is covered by Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act
and as per the provisions of Section 2(t) of Bihar Land Reforms Act , the
terms not defined under the Bihar Land Reforms Act with respect to areas
covered by Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act and Bihar Tenancy Act are to be
derived from the aforesaid Act respectively as per applicability of the Act
to the area.
6. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment in the case
reported in 1957 BLJR 689 (Bhola Mian vs. Sri S. M. Islam) and has
submitted that this judgment has been relied upon and referred to in the
case of Dwarka Gorhi (supra).
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while
opposing the prayer has submitted that merely because the tank was used
for the purposes of irrigation of the agricultural land of the appellants, the
same by itself is not sufficient to hold that it did not vest with the State of
Bihar under Bihar Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel has referred to
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1994)
Suppl. (3) SCC 725 (Lawanya Bala Devi vs. State of Bihar) to submit
that the land which was actually used for growing agricultural
crops/horticultural items were only prevented from being vesting and so
far as the tanks are concerned, they stood vested as they were not
specifically saved by any other provision under the Bihar Land Reforms
Act. He submits that so far as the first substantial question of law is
concerned, it is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment.
8. As the court time is over, post this case on 28.04.2025 to be taken
up at 2:15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
