IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2338 of 2006 Mira Devi @ Sisa Devi @ Sasi Devi Wife of Paras Nath, Resident of Mohalla- Ward No.10, Araria Police Station Araria, District-Araria. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Araria. 4. The Circle Officer, Araria. 5. The Certificate Officer, Araria. …..Respondents. ----------- 03/ 17.11.2011 Heard Mr. Bidhanesh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Lall, learned Assistant Counsel to learned Additional Advocate General-I on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i) For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the notice dated 28.08.2005 issued by the Certificate Officer, Araria in Certificate Case No.02/2005-06 under Section 7 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, hereinafter referred to as an “Act” for brevity, by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.2,62,500.00 (Two Lac, Sixty two thousand five hundred). ii) For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing order dated 21.11.2002 passed by D.C.L.R, Araria commercial Rent Fixation Case No.20/98-99 under Section 23(4) of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885 by which the D.C.L.R. has re-fixed the rent of the land of the petitioner appertaining to Mouza of Ward No.3, Khata no.198, Khesra No.2017 having an area of 1 Acre as commercial rent being 5% of the market value of the land which is Rs.37,500 (Thirty Seven thousand five hundred) and the commercial rent is to be realized from the year 1998-99 till further orders. iii) For a direction to the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question as the petitioner is not using it commercial. iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law. - 2 - 3. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the amount, which is sought to be recovered in the certificate case, is the amount which was recoverable under Section 23(4) which was inserted in the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 by the amending Act 21 of the 1993 with effect from 26.08.1993. The validity and vires of the said provision inserted in the Act was challenged by several persons in a number of writ petitions which were all decided by a common judgment dated 30.05.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Amar Singh and others vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2007(3) PLJR 225, in paragraphs 42 and 43 of which it had been specifically held that 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 and also that 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. It was also held that the offending provisions which have been found violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India are main and central provisions authorizing charging of tax/rent. Hence, the redetermined rent imposed by virtue of the impugned provisions of the Act and Rules must be declared as void and inoperative. Although in paragraph 92 of the said decision it has been held that benefit of the judgments shall be available only - 3 - in the pending cases and not in cases which have already attained finality, but in the instant case, this matter had been pending before this court since the year 2006, hence the principle settled in the said decision would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.02/2005-06 and notices/orders passed therein by Certificate Officer, Araria along with Commercial Rent Fixation Case No.28/1998-99 are hereby quashed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.