Case: Sant Saran Goswami @ Deoji Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors

1. The appellant is in possession of 15.36 acres of land of Village Baletha under Siwan Prakhand, State of Bihar. Dhanauti Math of Kabir Panth was notified under Section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). When the proceedings were initiated, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by his proceedings dated 15-4-1976 held that the appellant is a separate math and that therefore, the lands held by the appellant could not be included in the lands of Dhanauti Math. The Dhanauti Math carried the matter in appeal in respect of other lands and also in further revision to the Board of Revenue. While the revision was pending, by Amendment Act Section 32-A was brought on status w.e.f. 6-4-1981. The effect of the amendment is that all pending proceedings stood abated. Thereafter power has been given to start suo motu ceiling proceedings afresh. In exercise of the power, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms initiated the proceedings on 12-8-1981. In those proceedings it was held that Dhanauti Math is having several maths under its management like Bharatheri Math, Maujahidpur Math etc. including the appellant-Math and that therefore, all the lands are held by Dhanauti Math. Accordingly ceiling on the holding was determined. On appeals, it was confirmed and on further revision, the Board of Revenue by order dated 19-1-1984 confirmed the same. When the appellant filed the CWJC No. 1241 of 1984 in the High Court challenging the correctness of the findings recorded by the authorities, by order dated 10-7-1984 the High court dismissed the same in limine. Thus this appeal, by special leave. 2. It is firstly contended that reopening of proceedings is bad in law. The main reason on which the contention raised is that the Deputy Collector had declared by his proceedings dated 15-4-1976 that the appellant was a separate entity and that independently held the land. It was allowed to become final. Therefore, there were no proceedings pending in consequence of which the abatement had not taken place by operation of Section 32-A. Unfortunately, we cannot give acceptance to the contention for the reason that reopened proceedings were allowed to become final as they were not challenged by filing any writ petition in the High Court. In computation proceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise this contention. 3. It is next contended that the appellant is only a subsidiary to Dhanauti Math and it is not a family as defined under Section 2(ee) of the Act and that therefore, the lands held by the appellant cannot be included in the land by Dhanauti Math. This contention too has no force 4. Section 2(ee) reads thus "2. (ee) Family means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor childrenExplanation I. - In this clause the word person includes any company, institution, trust, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not;Explanation II. - The personal law shall not be relevant or be taken into consideration in determining the composition of the family for the purposes of the Act." * 5. Though the main part of family has been widely defined to mean and include enumerated entities, Explanation I makes the matter amply clear that the word person includes any company, institution, trust, association or any body of individuals whether incorporated or not. The revisional authority concluded after considering the evidence thus: "On a perusal of the order of the learned DCLR Siwan dated 15-4-1976 (Annexure V to the petition for revision) shows that Mahanth Muneshwar Goswami of Dhanauti Math had stated that there were several subsidiary maths under the Dhanauti Math such as Bharatheri Math, Baletha Math, Maujahidpur Math etc. In addition to this it is also admitted that the Mahanth of Baletha Math was impleaded on a party in the title suit relating to Dhanauti Math. Both these facts clearly indicate that Baletha Math is a part of Dhanauti Math. If this was not so the petitioner could have easily produced the registration papers of Dhanauti Math to indicate that Baletha Math was not a part of the same. He should have also produced a certificate from the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to confirm that Baletha math and Dhanauti Math were separate identities and has, nothing to do with one another. Though ample time was available to the petitioner-landholder, he did not do so." * In view of the finding that Baletha Math is part of Dhanauti Math, admittedly it is a trust. Therefore it cannot be treated to be a subsidiary as contended for in the light of the finding by the final revisional authority. 6. It is next contended that the above finding is not based on evidence and the reasoning is perverse and therefore it is open to this Court to go into the question and decide the matter afresh. We are afraid we cannot accede to this contention. It is seen that the revisional authority and all the authorities on appreciation of evidence concurrently came to the conclusion that the. appellants math is a part of Dhanauti Math. It being a finding of fact on consideration of material placed before the authorities, it is not open to this Court to appreciate the finding and to come to a different conclusion.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The main reason on which the contention raised is that the Deputy Collector had declared by his proceedings datedthat the appellant was a separate entity and that independently held the land. It was allowed to become final. Therefore, there were no proceedings pending in consequence of which the abatement had not taken place by operation of SectionUnfortunately, we cannot give acceptance to the contention for the reason that reopened proceedings were allowed to become final as they were not challenged by filing any writ petition in the High Court. In computation proceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise thisThough the main part of family has been widely defined to mean and include enumerated entities, Explanation I makes the matter amply clear that the word person includes any company, institution, trust, association or any body of individuals whether incorporated or not. The revisional authority concluded after considering the evidencea perusal of the order of the learned DCLR Siwan dated(Annexure V to the petition for revision) shows that Mahanth Muneshwar Goswami of Dhanauti Math had stated that there were several subsidiary maths under the Dhanauti Math such as Bharatheri Math, Baletha Math, Maujahidpur Math etc. In addition to this it is also admitted that the Mahanth of Baletha Math was impleaded on a party in the title suit relating to Dhanauti Math. Both these facts clearly indicate that Baletha Math is a part of Dhanauti Math. If this was not so the petitioner could have easily produced the registration papers of Dhanauti Math to indicate that Baletha Math was not a part of the same. He should have also produced a certificate from the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to confirm that Baletha math and Dhanauti Math were separate identities and has, nothing to do with one another. Though ample time was available to thehe did not do so."view of the finding that Baletha Math is part of Dhanauti Math, admittedly it is a trust. Therefore it cannot be treated to be a subsidiary as contended for in the light of the finding by the final revisionalare afraid we cannot accede to this contention. It is seen that the revisional authority and all the authorities on appreciation of evidence concurrently came to the conclusion thatmath is a part of Dhanauti Math. It being a finding of fact on consideration of material placed before the authorities, it is not open to this Court to appreciate the finding and to come to a different conclusion