IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8012 of 2003 KISHORI PRASAD GUPTA @ KISHORI PRASAD SON OF GUPTESHWAR RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KSHAHPUR, P.S. & DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, AURANGABAD SADAR, AURANGABAD. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AURANGABAD. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, AURANGABAD ANCHAL, AURANGABAD. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Mrigank Maulik and Vinay Mistry, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to SC V. 4/ 13-08-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order ( as contained in Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.2 whereby the rent has been re- determined on commercial basis with respect to P.S. No. 566, khata no. 215 and 100, Khesra No.2588, 2586/3572, under the provision of section 23(4) read with rule 5/8 of the Bihar Rent Fixation Rules, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Singh Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007 ( 3) PLJR 225. It would be apt to quote relevant passage of the aforesaid decision as under :- “Paragraph- 42 : As a result of the aforesaid - 2 - 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 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 other class of land holders covered by Chapters III, IV, VI and VII of the Act. (iv) The denial to the occupancy raiytas 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.” Learned counsel for the State also admits that the decision in the aforesaid case of Amar Singh (Supra) shall be applicable in the present case also. In view of the above, this writ application is also - 3 - allowed in terms of the decision in Amar Singh (Supra). ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J ) BTiwary/