IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.736 of 2006 Bibi Lutfun Nisan Begum and others Wakf Estate through its Motawalli Syed Asad Raza, Son of Late Nawab Syed Raza Ali Khan, resident of Hussainabad, P.S. Ariari, District Sheikhpur, Old Munger. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Land Revenue Secretary, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Land Revenue Commissioner, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 5. The Collector, Munger. 6. The Collector, Sheikhpura. 7. The Additional Collector, Sheikhpura. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura. 9. The Anchal Adhikari, Arari Block, Old Munger, New Sheikhpura. -Respondents. ----------- 03 23.06.2011 This case depicts a very sorry state of affairs. The writ petition has been filed by Bibi Lutfun Nisan Begum and others Wakf Estate through its Motawalli Syed Asad Raza of Hussainabad, P.S. Ariari, District Sheikhpur, old District Munger. This writ petition was filed for issuance of a direction to the State for payment of annuity in terms of Section 21(2) and Section 24(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Why this Court finds it to a strange case is that the rights of intermediaries (Jamabandis) were abolished in the year 1955 and compensations were to be paid upon determination of various issues. We are in the year 2011 but things have not yet attained finality. Counter affidavit has been filed in which it is asserted that the Revenue Commissioner has passed an order adverse to the petitioner on 11.08.2004 which has not been - 2 - challenged. The order of the Revenue Commissioner has been appended to the counter affidavit as Annexure-C. Petitioner thereafter filed interlocutory application, being I.A. No.6497 of 2007, appending the same as Annexure-10 and challenging the same. The order of the Revenue Commissioner is even more interesting and intriguing. Instead of resolving the issue he has taken a complete tangent. Having heard the matter, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act apart from other intermediary interest being vested one class of case that was considered was where the interest was held as a religious trust or a Wakf purely for the benefit of others that is to the exclusion of the holder. In other words, the income of the intermediary from the said would only be enjoyed by people at large or the deity but not by the trustee or any individual beneficiary. For this purpose claims had to be laid as provided under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and upon examination first in terms of Section 21 (2) a recommendation had to be made by the Collector of the district to the State Government and State Government was then to declare it as a trust or a Wakf aforesaid. The consequence of this declaration would be that the income from the intermediary interest in respect of the trust would then be calculated and instead of compensation payable under Section 24 yearly annuity would - 3 - be fixed in terms of Section 24(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The yearly annuity was to be equal to the annual income of the trust. The same was then required to be paid on year to year basis, but pending finalization Act authorizes ad interim payment. It appears that in the year 1953 itself claim was duly lodged on behalf of the petitioner’s trust before the Collector, Munger, as he then was. Apparently, matters were enquired into but then there is a void not of a short period but a longer period of several decades. There are contemporaneous communications from the Circle Officer and Collector showing that the original records were missing and they have been reconstructed. The fact remains that the recommendation of the Collector to the State Government in terms of Section 21(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is not itself clearly available on record but there appears to be some documents showing that these considerations were taken up and from time to time ad interim annuity was paid. Records also reveal as per order passed by the Circle Officer in Case No.01 of 2003-04 dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that apart from accepting that it was a trust entitled to annuity in terms of Section 24(3) of the Act there are calculations to show that the annual annuity have been worked out to Rs.26,789.02. The said communication also shows that from time to time some amount was paid including an amount of Rs.3487.14 on 29.03.1989. Now the matter is referred to the State - 4 - Government apparently both in respect of declaration as contemplated under Section 21(2) and for fixing the annuity at the rate of Rs.26,789.02 and for payment of arrears which is also computed in this letter of the Circle Officer. These recommendations are ultimately dealt with by the Revenue Commissioner. The Revenue Commissioner confuses the whole issue instead of objectively first considering and passing orders in terms of Section 21(2) and then approving the annuity as recommended makes a sweeping statement without passing any order under Order-XXII that the annuity had been fixed at Rs.3487.14 which is factually incorrect as the communication of the Circle Officer would show that this is the ad interim payment that was made on 29.03.1989. It is virtually these which had brought the petitioner to this Court. In my view, this Court is not called upon to decide the issue of Section 21(2). That obligation is on the State to take a decision therefor. There are recommendations in favour of the petitioner both with regard to order to be passed in terms of Section 21(2) and in terms of Section 24(3) of the Act fixing annuity. I, therefore, direct the Revenue Commissioner or any other competent officer of the State after perusing the records to pass final orders objectively in terms of Section 21(2) and objectively determine the annuity payable if any to the petitioner. In case, it is found that after adjusting ad - 5 - interim payments made any amount is due and payable State would ensure that the same is paid within three months of the determination and would be continued to be paid on yearly basis by the district authorities thereafter. It may be not out of place to remind the State that vesting of property took place way back in 1953-55 but this being the only compensation to the persons deprived of their properties. The State cannot sleep over the matter for over half a century. It is high time the matter reaches finality. The order of the Revenue Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit (Annexure-10 to the interlocutory application), is set aside. It is expected that the final orders would be passed within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Revenue Commissioner. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)