1957 (8) TMI 35 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950 proceedings for unauthorized land occupation.

Chotanagpur Banking Association, Ltd. and Ors. Versus Govt. of India and Ors.

Chotanagpur Banking Association, Ltd. and Ors. Versus Govt. of India and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of proceedings under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950.2. Jurisdiction of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue.3. Applicability of Section 2(ii)(a) and other clauses of Section 2(ii) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950.4. Legal status of lands acquired under the Defence of India Rules.5. Payment of compensation for acquired lands.6. Validity of assessment and penalty imposed under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Proceedings under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950:The petitioners sought to quash proceedings initiated against them for unauthorized occupation of government land meant for the airfield at Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner found the petitioners liable for unauthorized occupation and ordered their eviction, assessment for three years, and a penalty ten times the annual assessment. The Commissioner modified the penalty to three times the annual assessment and limited the assessment to two years, while the Board of Revenue upheld these findings.2. Jurisdiction of the Orders Passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue:The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue. The High Court issued rules to show cause why the impugned orders should not be quashed. The Government Pleader showed cause on behalf of the opposite party, defending the jurisdiction and validity of the orders.3. Applicability of Section 2(ii)(a) and Other Clauses of Section 2(ii) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950:Mr. Chatterji argued that Section 2(ii)(a) did not apply to the case, and other clauses of Section 2(ii) also did not cover the present case. The court agreed that Section 2(ii)(a) did not apply but held that the case fell within the scope of Section 2(ii)(e), which includes land in possession of the government obtained by way of transfer or otherwise. The court rejected the argument that the words 'or otherwise' should be read ejusdem generis with 'by way of transfer,' concluding that the legislature intended to cover all possible ways in which title may vest in the government.4. Legal Status of Lands Acquired under the Defence of India Rules:The court held that lands acquired under Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules vested absolutely in the government, free from all encumbrances. The acquisition was not temporary, and the title did not revert to the original owner after the expiry of the Defence of India Rules. The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in similar contexts to support this conclusion.5. Payment of Compensation for Acquired Lands:The court noted that compensation must be paid for acquired lands as per Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939. The petitioners did not claim that compensation was not paid, and the Commissioner confirmed that compensation had been paid. The court assumed that the acquisition followed the legal procedure, including compensation.6. Validity of Assessment and Penalty Imposed under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950:The court upheld the assessment and penalty imposed by the authorities, noting that the assessment was made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. The penalty was reduced by the Commissioner, and the orders were passed by competent authorities under the Act. Therefore, the assessment and penalty were not open to challenge on grounds of hardship.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the lands acquired under the Defence of India Rules were 'public property' within the meaning of Section 2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and concluded that the orders of eviction, assessment, and penalty were valid and within jurisdiction. The rules were discharged, and the petitioners were ordered to pay costs to the opposite party.