JUDGMENT
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.
Page 0947
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, erstwhile owner of the land, in question, has sought a direction against the respondents to make payment of the compensation amount to him in accordance with the approval already accorded by respondent No. 3, the then Additional Collector, Purnea, in Compensation Case No. 1018 of 1955-56 for the Khawati/Tauzi lands situated in Forbesganj., Araria Palasi and Sikty Anchals of the district which vested in the State of Bihar in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (In short “the Act”).
2. The second relief is sought for quashing the notices dated 21.3.1984 and 16.7.1986 by which the matter is being enquired afresh after inordinate delay, on the ground that reopening of the case cannot be done once the matter has been settled and disposed of for payment of compensation by order dated 14.2.1983, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure 5.
3. The respondent State has not filed any counter affidavit in reply for the reasons not known to the Court. When the matter was called out Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned S.C. 8 appeared and requested for time for seeking instruction in this 20 years’ old matter without filing any counter affidavit. This is nothing but a dilatory tactics in order to avoid payment of compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Hence, the prayer for time is rejected.
4. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) is an Act to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in land of the mortgagees and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution of a Land Commission for the State of Bihar with powers to advise the State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Government consequent upon such transference and other matters connected therewith.
5. The Act has given a lead in land reforms not only in the State of Bihar but in the whole of the country as well. The Act is, therefore designed for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders in the land of the mortgagees and lessees of such interest in terms of the Act. There is healthy syndrome and wholesome idea behind the Act for agrarian reforms. The Act applies to the Zamindari asset vested in the trustees for religious or charitable purpose. Page 0948 The Act is constitutionally valid even though some of its provisions may trench incidentally on certain matters reserved for the Union Parliament as held by this Court in the case of Molvi Abdul Hasan v. State of Bihar 1953 BLJR 35. This Act also applies to the Zamindari assets of incorporated companies. It deals in pith and substance with Entry 36 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India.
6. The definition of ‘estate’ no doubt, refer to land and not to any structure standing on any of the lands within the ambit of an estate. But if the buildings of whatever description they may be or to whatever use they might have been put at the time and before the vesting of the estate, were not to vest in the State on the issue of the notification, there was no reason why the Legislature would have provided for the retention of some building of a particular description and use, by the outgoing intermediary on some rent to be fixed by the prescribed authorities in a prescribed manner.
7. It would be interesting to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh v. Kamla Singh AIR 1977 SC 9 which reads here as under:
A close-up of the profile of the land reform law would help us appreciate the purpose and programme of the statute and the meaning of the provision under construction. The project, as highlighted in the Preamble in grandiose and in keeping with Part IV of the Constitution, but in actual implementation drags its feet. Indeed, counsel on both sides were readily agreed only on one point, viz., that neither this Act nor the law setting a ceiling on land ownership slumbering on the statute book since 1962, has been seriously enforced. The ninth Schedule to the Constitution can immunise a legislation from forensic challenge but what schedule can invigorate a half-inert administration into quick implementation of welfare-oriented, urgently needed, radical legislation now lying mummified in the books? If the assertion of non-implementation of land reforms laws made at the bar were true, the Bihar State Government has much to answer for to ‘We, the People of India’ and to the stultified legislature whose ‘reform’ exercise remains in suspended animation. In this very case, before the High Court, the Advocate General has appeared for the plaintiff-landowner and yet the State has not bestirred itself to appear and claim the suit lands. We are left in obscurity on the vital point, neither counsel nor the records throwing any light on whether the State had been given notice in the case in the High Court. The social transformation cherished by the Constitution involves reordering of the land system and a vigilant administration would have intervened in this 20 year-old litigation long ago and extinguished the private contest to the advantage of the State. The feudal will may, not unoften, furtively hide, in strategic positions may be.
8. It is found from the record that in view of the notification under Section 3 of the Act, the agricultural property of the petitioner came to be vested with the State in which an inquiry was held for giving compensation and it has been finally resolved in the year 1983 as per the Annexure-5. Even there is no counter affidavit. The testimonial collections placed along with the petition have remained unrebutted. By the orders of the authorities and as per the final decision reached by the respondents authorities, Page 0949 on 29.3.1982 the petitioner was found to be in entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 58,340.18 as per the direction of the Additional Collector, Purnea, respondent No. 3. It is in these contexts, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the claim made by the petitioner is quite justified and is delayed for a long time. Therefore, the aforesaid amount is directed to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of three months from today failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of further delay with exemplary cost of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand).
9. In the result, this application shall stand allowed as above. The rule is made absolute. No costs.