Case: Prithvinath Singh and Others Vs. Suraj Ahir and Others

the same date, that is on September 13, 1965, the Government Pleader, on behalf of the State, seems to have appeared before the High Court and made representation on the basis of which the High Court issued notice to the State under Section 4(ee) of the Act. The State entered appearance on September 20, 1965, and filed an application for getting impleaded as a party to the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the suit lands had vested in the State of Bihar with effect from January 1, 1956, and that the plaintiffs, who were illegally in possession of the suit lands, have delivered possession of the same to the State of Bihar on August 22, 1965, and that the State was in lawful possession of the suit lands which was the subject of the appeal before the High Court since August 22, 1965. It was further averred that neither the plaintiffs not the defendants have any right, title or interest in the suit lands and that in particular the defendants are not entitled to claim restitution of the property which is in the lawful possession of the State. It was prayed that the State should be impleaded as a party and that the Court should hold that neither the plaintiffs not the defendants have any right, title or interest in the suit lands. This application was heard by the High Court on October 14, 1965, and the State was impleaded as a party to the appeal and also heard on merits. The affidavit on behalf of the State, unfortunately, has been sworn to by the Circle Inspector Anchal Sahar in the district of Shahabad. It is rather regrettable that in such an important matter, the State instead of having a proper affidavit filed by the Collector or any other responsible officer chose to file an affidavit sworn to by a Circle Inspector. The High Court in consequence felt suspicious about the conduct of the State and hence rejected its contention that no relief should be granted to either the plaintiffs or the defendants.19. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the claim made on behalf of the State. This Court, in the title suit proceedings, has categorically held that the estate had vested in the State and the right to possession, as well as rights to recover possession form a trespasser, also got vested in the State.20. Section 4(ee) makes it clear that the State is as of right entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings referred to therein and place its point of view before the Court. In this case the State has raised objection before the High Court that as the estate has vested in the State under the Act and as the Collector is deemed to have taken charge of the estate, from the date of vesting, there is no question of any claim for restitution surviving in the plaintiffs or the defendants in these proceedings. Apart form the fact that from January 1, 1956, the estate had vested in the State and the Collector under Section 4(f) shall be deemed to have taken charge of the estate from the date of vesting, there is categorical averment by the State that they have taken possession from the plaintiffs on August 22, 1965. The plaintiffs have also stated that they have surrendered possession to the State, So far as we cold see, the High Court has not rejected as false the claim made by the State. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the question of restitution has to be considered only as between the plaintiffs and the defendants on the basis of the result of the title suit proceedings.21. As we have already pointed out even without the actual physical possession taken on August 22, 1965, in law the State must be considers to have been in possession from the date of vesting by virtue of Section 3 and 4, read with Section 4(f). We have already pointed out the difference between Section 4(f) as if originally stood and after its amendment in 1954 with retrospective effect. Apart from the fact that the Collector shall be deemed to have taken charge, the position if further strengthened by the State having actually taken possession from the plaintiffs on August 22, 1965. It is also significant that the defendants were prepared to restrict their claim before the High Court for mesne profits till August 22, 1965, the date on which the plaintiffs surrendered possession to the State.22. From what is stated above it follows that the defendants have no right to get possession from the plaintiffs after the estate had vested and possession delivered to the rightful party, namely, the State. Therefore, the order of restitution passed as against the plaintiffs was erroneous.23. The same principles will apply to the claim for mesne profits made by the defendants. The defendants have claimed mesne profits from May 6, 1959, the date when the plaintiffs took delivery of the suit lands by virtue of the High Courts decision, but long before i.e. January 1, 1956, the State had vested in the State under the Act. As we have held that the defendants are not entitled to get restitution, it follows that they will not also be entitled to claim mesne profits. Therefore, this claim also will have to be rejected.24. The claim made by the defendants for refunds of costs collected by the plaintiffs in the title suit proceedings has not resisted by the latter and that claim has been allowed by the High Court. That part of the order of the High Court will stand. Subject to the direction given above, the judgment of the High Court directing the plaintiffs to surrender possession of the suit lands to the defendants and pay mesne profits will stand set aside and the claim made by the defendants in this regard will stand dismissed.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Having due regard to the contentions places before us, we are of the opinion, that the claim for restitution and the further claim for mesne profits should not have been allowed in this case in favour of thethe outset we must point out that though the Act has come into force on September 25, 1950, and the estate including the suit lands had become vested in the State on January 1, 1956, and though the First Appeal No. 143 of 1948 in the High Court was pending during those material dates, no notice was given to the State nor was it impleaded as a party as is mandatory under Section 4(ee) of the Act. The result was that both the appeals in the High Court and the appeal in this Court were heard and decided without the State as a party and therefore it is only legitimate to infer that the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants inter sea were alone dealt with and decided in those proceedings. In fact even if any finding had been recorded prejudicial to the State, those findings will not be binding on the State.From what is stated above, it will be seen that this Court in the above decision had no occasion to deal with the rights of the State as such. The effect of the Act was only considered for the purpose of finding out whether the plaintiffs had plaintiffs had subsisting title to prosecute their suit for recovery of possession. The sum and substance of the decision of this Court is that the plaintiffs had no right to recover possession of the suit lands and that the defendants has no right as mortgagees and that their possession many be as trespasser or in any other capacity. But it must be noted, that this Court had categorically held that after the estate vested in the State, the right to possession vested in the State and the right to recover possession from a trespasser also got vested in the State. The State had not been impleaded in those proceedings.13. We are not inclined to accept thecontention of Mr. Mehta that the dispute between the parties in the restitution proceedings has to be adjudicated merely on the basis of Section 144,ignoring the decision of this Court and the material provisions of thee was not in the original Act of 1950. It has been inserted in the year 1954 by the Bihar land Reforms (Amendment Act) 1953 (Bihar Act 20 of 1954). At any rate this provision was in force from May 17, 1954. That is why we have mentioned earlier that in the First Appeal No. 143 of 1948, which was pending before the Patna High Court, no steps were taken to issue notice to the State so as the enable it to appear and conduct or defend the proceedings before the High Court. Thatalso makes it clear that in the absence of sub notice, the decree or order passed in the suit, appeal or proceedings shall not be binding on the State Government. Therefore, it is clear that as the State was not made a party before the High Court or in the further appeal to this Court, the State had no occasion or opportunity to place its objection to the claims made by the parties in those proceedings.We do not think to refer to clause (g) of Section 4 as it originally stood or after its amendment in 1954 or as it stands at present as substituted in 1959 because it has no bearing in deciding the claim of the parties beforethe position in this case is that on January 1, 1956, the estate in which the suit lands are included vested in the State and from that date the Collector in law should be deemed to have taken the charge.We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the claim made on behalf of the State. This Court, in the title suit proceedings, has categorically held that the estate had vested in the State and the right to possession, as well as rights to recover possession form a trespasser, also got vested in the State.20. Section 4(ee) makes it clear that the State is as of right entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings referred to therein and place its point of view before the Court. In this case the State has raised objection before the High Court that as the estate has vested in the State under the Act and as the Collector is deemed to have taken charge of the estate, from the date of vesting, there is no question of any claim for restitution surviving in the plaintiffs or the defendants in these proceedings. Apart form the fact that from January 1, 1956, the estate had vested in the State and the Collector under Section 4(f) shall be deemed to have taken charge of the estate from the date of vesting, there is categorical averment by the State that they have taken possession from the plaintiffs on August 22, 1965. The plaintiffs have also stated that they have surrendered possession to the State, So far as we cold see, the High Court has not rejected as false the claim made by the State. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the question of restitution has to be considered only as between the plaintiffs and the defendants on the basis of the result of the title suit proceedings.21. As we have already pointed out even without the actual physical possession taken on August 22, 1965, in law the State must be considers to have been in possession from the date of vesting by virtue of Section 3 and 4, read with Section 4(f). We have already pointed out the difference between Section 4(f) as if originally stood and after its amendment in 1954 with retrospective effect. Apart from the fact that the Collector shall be deemed to have taken charge, the position if further strengthened by the State having actually taken possession from the plaintiffs on August 22, 1965. It is also significant that the defendants were prepared to restrict their claim before the High Court for mesne profits till August 22, 1965, the date on which the plaintiffs surrendered possession to the State.22. From what is stated above it follows that the defendants have no right to get possession from the plaintiffs after the estate had vested and possession delivered to the rightful party, namely, the State. Therefore, the order of restitution passed as against the plaintiffs was erroneous.23. The same principles will apply to the claim for mesne profits made by the defendants. The defendants have claimed mesne profits from May 6, 1959, the date when the plaintiffs took delivery of the suit lands by virtue of the High Courts decision, but long before i.e. January 1, 1956, the State had vested in the State under the Act. As we have held that the defendants are not entitled to get restitution, it follows that they will not also be entitled to claim mesne profits. Therefore, this claim also will have to be rejected.24. The claim made by the defendants for refunds of costs collected by the plaintiffs in the title suit proceedings has not resisted by the latter and that claim has been allowed by the High Court. That part of the order of the High Court will stand. Subject to the direction given above, the judgment of the High Court directing the plaintiffs to surrender possession of the suit lands to the defendants and pay mesne profits will stand set aside and the claim made by the defendants in this regard will stand dismissed.