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.)