IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6017 of 2003 RAM DAYAL RAI, Son of Ram Dan Rai, resident of village Dighra, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Samastipur 3. The Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur 4. The Circle Officer, Pusa, Samastipur ….. Respondents For the petitioner:- Mr. L.N. Das, Mr. S. Dey and Mr. Ranjit Saran, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Anwar Karim, A.C. to S.C.-V ----------- 03 07.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has come for quashing the entire proceeding initiated under Section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 being Rent Fixation Case No. 15 of 1997-98/56 of 1997-98 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur, fixing commercial rent and also for quashing the notice of demand as per the aforesaid fixation of rent and a subsequent orders of the D.C.L.R., Samastipur as contained in Annexure-3 and also the order of Collector dated 29.1.2002. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that this case is covered by Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Amar Singh and Others Versus The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2 2007 (3) P.L.J.R. page 225, whereby group of writ applications were allowed by this Court. It would be apt to quote relevant passage therefrom as under:- “ 42. As a result of the aforesaid discussions it is held as follows:- (i) The impugned provisions are within the legal competence of the State Legislature. (ii) Although described as rent, the impugned levy is in fact, a tax on land covered by Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. (iii) The Impugned tax on land is discriminatory because it is imposed only on a class of land owners i.e. raiyats with occupancy rights covered by Chapter V of the Act and not to others class of land holders covered by Chapters III, IV, VI and VII of the Act. (iv) The denial to the occupancy raiyats the right to use their land in any manner of their choice is arbitrary, unreasonable and against Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. (v) The words – “to the extent of 5 per cent” in first proviso to sub- section (4) of Section 23 of the Act is bad in law on account of excessive delegation and abdication of legislative function by the legislature. (vi) Rule 4 of the Rules is bad in law for excluding other permissible modes to determine the real market value of the land which is likely to result in unfair and unjust levy of rent/ tax. (vii) The proviso to Rule 5 is ultra vires the first proviso to Section 23 (4) of the Act.” It was also clarified therein that the 3 benefit of the judgment shall be available to the pending cases. Learned counsel for the State admits to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this writ application is allowed in terms of the law laid down in the case of Amar Singh (Supra). P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)