IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4271 of 2003 1. MOHAN LAL JAIN, son of Maumal Jain, 2. Bishwanath Gupta, son of Late Baijnath Gupta, 3. Diwakar Prasad Singh, son of Late Narsingh Narayan Singh, All residents of Village Sarsi, Police Station Sarsi, District Purnia. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Purnia, 3. Circle Officer, Sarsi, District Purnia. . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, Advocate, For the State : Mr. Anwar Karim, AC/SC V ----------- 3/ 30.07.2009 Heard the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 10.04.2002 as well as 30.04.2002 whereby the authorities have passed Commercial rent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is covered by a decision of Division Bench of this court rendered in Amar Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, 2007 (3) PLJR 225 as well as a group of cases again decided in Govind Pd. Makharia & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 821. The Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh (supra) has reached to the conclusion in paragraph 42 and has held 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 - 2 - 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 ha also been decided that the aforesaid decisions would be applicable in all pending cases. Learned counsel for the State also admits the aforesaid contention of the petitioners. In view of the above, this writ application is allowed in the same terms as laid down in Amar Singh & Ors (supra) and the impugned order fixing the commercial rent in respect of the land in question in this application is accordingly set aside. Uday/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )