A Single Judge Bench of Justice Khatim Reza was hearing the writ petition on remand from a Division Bench, which had directed reconsideration of the earlier judgment in light of proceedings initiated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act concerning the disputed land.

The dispute concerns 18 Kathas 10 Dhurs of land, equivalent to approximately 0.56 acres, in Mainpura, Patna. The land had been acquired by the State Government in 1976 under the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882 in Land Acquisition Case No. 50 of 1975-76 for construction of a drain. While the construction had been completed, compensation had not been paid either to the original owner, Indrani Devi, who died in 2002, or to the petitioner.

During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the Collector, Patna passed an order dated 12.04.2023 in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 1 of 2012-13, cancelling the Jamabandi of the petitioner, her mother and others. The order was passed pursuant to proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and also directed removal of encroachment from the disputed land.

The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and emphasised that Section 4(h) cannot operate independently of the vesting contemplated under Sections 3 and 4. The Court explained that Section 4(h) gives the Collector power to inquire into transfers made after 01.01.1946 where they were intended to defeat the Act, cause loss to the estate or secure higher compensation, and to annul such transfers. However, this power arises only after the estate has vested in the State.

The Court observed:

“The initiation of Section 4(h) of the B.L.R. Act proceeding requires vesting as foundational pre-requisite. The provisions enacted under Section 4(h) of the B.L.R Act are not independent provisions of the Act, the provisions are ancillary in character and Section 4(h) has been enacted for carrying out more effectively the main provisions of the Act.”

The Bench further explained that the principal provisions of the Act are Sections 3 and 4, under which the State Government, by notification, declares that an estate has passed to and become vested in the State. Section 4(h), according to the Court, is intended to assist in giving effect to that vesting and to prevent evasion of the land reforms legislation by dishonest zamindars.

The Court noted that the State had not produced any notification under Section 3 or 3A showing that the disputed land had vested in the State. Nor had the State produced the relevant return, which could have clarified the status of the land. The Court also considered the Jamabandi records prepared by the State itself. It noted that the Jamabandi in favour of the tenants and the finally published Register of Land prepared under Section 28 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act carry a presumption regarding the vesting of land in the State. However, these records had not been properly considered by the Collector.

Instead, the Collector had relied upon the entry in the Cadastral Survey Khatiyan describing the land as “Ghairmazarua Aam Pichhali Nadi”. The High Court noted that such a survey entry, by itself, is not a document of title. The Court also found that the petitioner's mother had purchased the disputed land in 1941, i.e. before 01.01.1946. This was supported by a report of a Three-Man Committee constituted by the Collector himself.

The Bench accordingly held that the Collector could not have exercised Section 4(h) jurisdiction to annul a transfer which pre-dated 01.01.1946. It further noted that the long-standing Jamabandi, which had been created in favour of the petitioner's mother and pursuant to which rent had been accepted by the State, could not be cancelled through a summary revenue proceeding. The Court held:

“The Collector did not have any jurisdiction under Section 4(h) of the B.L.R. Act to cancel a duly created Jamabandi which was created and rent was accepted by the State.”

It further observed that if the State wished to challenge the pre-1946 title or settlement, the appropriate remedy would be to approach a competent Civil Court rather than seek cancellation through summary revenue proceedings. In view of these findings, the Court concluded that the Collector had no jurisdiction to initiate the Section 4(h) proceeding in the absence of proof of vesting and that the order cancelling the Jamabandi was “illegal without jurisdiction”.

The Court then turned to the petitioner's claim for compensation for the land acquired in 1976. It considered whether compensation should be calculated under the old land acquisition regime or under the 2013 Act.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority, the Court noted that where compensation had not been paid in the circumstances contemplated under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landholder could become entitled to compensation under the new legislation. The Court accordingly held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act.

The Collector's order dated 12.04.2023 was therefore quashed, the Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioner's mother was restored, and the petitioner was held entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act.

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma, Adv.; Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Adv.

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, G.A.-3