{"id":194852,"date":"1953-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953"},"modified":"2017-01-19T19:36:39","modified_gmt":"2017-01-19T14:06:39","slug":"motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953","title":{"rendered":"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 320, \t\t 1953 SCR 720<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOTIPUR ZAMINDARI CO.  LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER.RAJA JANKINATH ROY AND NAREND\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/04\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  320\t\t  1953 SCR  720\n\n\nACT:\n Bihar\tLand  Reforms  Act, 1950, ss. 2\t (o)  and  (r),\t 3-\nApplicability  of  Act\tto  companies-\"Person\"\t\"Proprietor\"\n\"tenure-holder\",meanings of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  The word \" person \" in the definitions of \" proprietor  \"\"\nand  tenure-holder  \"  contained in a. 2 (o) and  s.  2\t (r)\nrespectively  of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950,  includes\ncompanies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.\nThere is nothing repugnant in the subject or context of\t the\nAct  to prevent the inclusion of a company within the  terms\nproprietor  \"  and \" tenure-holder \". On the  contrary\tsuch\ninclusion  is necessary in order to give full effect to\t the\nobject of the Act.\n   Pharmaceutical  Society  v.\tThe  London  and  Provincial\nSupply\t Association,  Limited\t(1880)\t5  App.\t  Cas.\t 857\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
  CIVIL\t APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 62\tand
\n63   of\t 1953.\t Appeals  under\t Article  132  (1)  of\t the
\nConstitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated 22nd
\nDecember,  1952,  of the High Court of Judicature  at  Patna
\n(Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prosad JJ.) in Miscellaneous  Judicial
\nCases Nos. 238 and 242 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
 P. R. Das (J. C.  Sinha and L. K. Chaudhry, with him) for
\nthe appellant in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
 M. C.\tSetalvad, Attorney-General for India  (L.   N.Sinha
\nand Bajrang Sahai, with him) for the respondents in both the
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
1953.  April 17.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nS. R. DAB J.\n<\/p>\n
721<\/span><\/p>\n
   DAS J.-This judgment disposes of Civil Appeals No. 62 of
\n1953 and No. 63 of 1953 which have been heard together.
\n The Motipur Zamindari Company Ltd., the appellant in Civil
\nAppeal\tNo. 6.) of 1953, was incorporated in 1932 under\t the
\nIndian\tCompanies  Act\tand has\t its  registered  office  in
\nBengal.\t  It supplies sugar-cane to a sister  concern  named
\nMotipur Sugar Factory Ltd.  Raja Jankinath Roy and  Narendra
\nNath  Roy  and Co., Ltd., the appellant in C. A. No.  63  of
\n1953,  was incorporated in 1933 under the  Indian  Companies
\nAct  and  also has its registered office  in  Bengal.\tThis
\ncompany owns Zamindari Properties in Purnea in the State  of
\nBihar  as well as in Malda in the State of West Bengal.\t  It
\ncarries\t  on  business,\t amongst  others,  as\tbanker\t and
\nfinancier.\n<\/p>\n
 On the 30th December, 1949, a bill entitled the Bihar Land\n<\/p>\n
-Reforms Bill was passed by the Bihar Legislature and having
\nbeen  reserved\tfor  the  consideration\t of  the   President
\nreceived his assent on the 11th September, 1950.  The Act so
\npassed and assented to was published in the Bihar Gazette on
\nthe 25th September, 1950, and was brought into force on\t the
\nsame  day by a notification made by the State Government  in
\nexercise of powers conferred on it by section 1(3) of  the
\nAct.  Many of the proprietors and tenure holders  of
\nZamindari estates took proceedings against   the  State\t  of
\nBihar\tfor   appropriate  orders  restraining\t the   State
\nGovernment from taking over the estates under the provisions
\nof  the Act which they claimed to be beyond the\t legislative
\ncompetency of the Bihar Legislature and otherwise void.\t  On
\nthe  12th  March, 1951, a Special Bench of  the\t Patna\tHigh
\nCourt  held that the Act was unconstitutional on account  of
\nits  contravention of article 14 of the\t Constitution.\t The
\nState of Bihar appealed to this Court.\tPending that appeal,
\nthe  provisional Parliament passed the\tConstitution  (First
\nAmendment)  Act, 1951.\tThe respondents in the\tmain  appeal
\ntook  proceedings  in this Court, contending  that  the\t Act
\namending the Constitution was invalid. This
\n722<\/span>
\nCourt however, on 5th October, 1951, upheld the validity  of
\nthe  amending  Act.  On 6th November,’\t1951,  notifications
\nwere  issued under section3 of the Bihar Act declaring\tthat
\ncertain Touzies belonging to the appellants specified in the
\nnotification  had passed to and become vested in the  State.
\nBoth the appellants made separate applications to the  Patna
\nHigh Court under article 226 of the Constitution praying for
\nmandamus  or  suitable direction or  order  restraining\t the
\nrespondent  from  taking  possession  of  their\t  respective
\nestates\t or tenures by virtue of the said notifications\t and
\nfor other ancillary reliefs.  The appeals filed by the State
\nof  Bihar against the order of the Special  Bench  declaring
\nthe Act to be void came up for hearing before this Court and
\nthis  Court upheld the validity of the Act, except as  to  a
\nfew provisions mentioned in the majority judgment which were
\nhold to be severable. Thereafter, the two applications\tmade
\nby  the\t two appellants under article 226 before  the  Patna
\nHigh Court came up for hearing and were dismissed by a Bench
\nof  that  Court\t on the 22nd December,\t1952.\tThe  present
\nappeals\t have been filed with leave of the Patna High  Court
\nagainst the said dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
  The question raised before the High Court was whether the
\nAct  was,  on its true construction, intended  to  apply  to
\nZamindari estates of companies incorporated under the Indian
\nCompanies  Act.\t  In support of the  appellants’  contention
\nthat  it was not, it was urged -that the  Bihar\t Legislature
\nhad  no\t authority  to legislate  with\trespect\t to  trading
\ncorporations or non-trading corporations whose objects\twere
\nnot  confined, to one State.  Reference was made to  entries
\n43, 44 and 45 of List I to show that it was Parliament alone
\nwhich was authorized to make law with respect to matters set
\nforth  in those entries.  The contention was that the  Bihar
\nLegislature in enacting the Act invaded the Union field\t and
\nso  the\t Act was invalid.  This argument was  sought  to  be
\nreinforced by reference to the provisions of the Act and the
\nwinding up provisions of the Companies Act.  The Patna High
\n723<\/span>
\nCourt overruled this contention and Mr.P.R.Das appearing  in
\nsupport of these appeals has not challenged this part of the
\ndecision of the Patna High Court.\n<\/p>\n
  The main point urged by Mr. P. R. Das is that even if the
\nBihar  Legislature could make a law for acquiring  Zamindari
\nestates of incorporated companies it did not, by the Act, in
\nfact  do so.  Section 3 authorises the State  Government  to
\ndeclare\t by  notification that the estates or tenures  of  a
\nproprietor or tenure-holder have passed to and become vested
\nin  the State.\tIt will be recalled that it was\t under\tthis
\nsection that the State Government on the 6th November, 1951,
\nissued the notifications with respect to the estates of\t the
\nappellants  situate  within  the State.\t  Mr.  P.  R.  Das’s
\nprincipal contention is that the appellant companies do\t not
\ncome within the terms, ” proprietor” or ” tenure holder”  as
\ndefined by the Act and consequently no part of their estates
\nwere  intended\t‘to  be vested or did in fact  vest  in\t the
\nState.\t” Proprietor” is defined by section 2(o) as  meaning
\na  person holding in trust or owning for his own benefit  an
\nestate\tor  a part of an state and includes  the  heirs\t and
\nsuccessors-in-interest\t of  a\tproprietor  and,   where   a
\nproprietor  is a minor or of unsound mind or an\t idiot,\t his
\nguardian,  committee or other legal curator.   Tenure-holder
\nis  defined  by section 2 (r) as meaning a  person  who\t has
\nacquired from a proprietor or from any tenure-holder a right
\nto hold land etc.  The argument is that the word “person” in
\nthe  two  definitions  referred to above does  not,  in\t the
\ncontext of the Act, include a company.\tIt is conceded\tthat
\nunder  section\t4(40) of the Bihar General Clauses  Act\t the
\nword “person” would ordinarily include a company, but it  is
\nurged  by  Mr. P.R. Das that the definitions given  in\tthat
\nsection\t apply only where there is nothing repugnant in\t the
\nsubject\t or context.  His contention is that the  definition
\nof “proprietor” and “tenureholder” indicates that a  company
\nwhich  owns Zamindaries is not covered by  that\t definition.
\nWe are unable to accept this contention.  It is not disputed
\n94<\/span>
\n724<\/span>
\nthat a company can own an estate or a part of an estate and,
\nindeed,\t the appellant companies are fighting these  appeals
\nonly to protect the estates they  own. Therefore, they\tcome
\nwithin\tthe  first part of the definition.   The  definition
\nafter  stating\twhat the word means proceeds to\t state\twhat
\nelse  the definition would include under  certain  specified
\ncircumstances,\tnamely, the heirs and  successor-in-interest
\netc.  The word “heir” certainly is inappropriate with regard
\nto  a  company, but there is nothing  inappropriate  in\t the
\ncompany\t having a successor in interest.  It is pointed\t out
\nthat  there is no provision in the definition of  proprietor
\nto  include the directors, managing agents and, in  case  of
\nwinding\t  up,\tthe  liquidator\t of   the   company.\tThis
\ncircumstance does not appear to us to be a cogent reason for
\nholding that the word “proprietor” as defined does not cover
\na company.  It is to be noted that the agent or, in case  of
\ninsolvency,   the  official  assignee  or  receiver  of\t  an
\nindividual   proprietor\t are  also  not\t included   in\t the
\ndefinition.   Reference to proprietor who is a minor  or  of
\nunsound\t mind  or  an  idiot  and  his\tguardian  etc.,\t was
\nobviously  necessary because those proprietors\tsuffer\tfrom
\nlegal disabilities.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  P. R. Das refers us to various sections and rules
\nframed\tunder  section\t43 of the Act  to  show\t that’\tonly
\nnatural\t persons  were intended to be affected by  the\tAct,
\nbecause,  ha urges, the company is not competent to  do\t the
\nacts therein referred to.  It is not ,disputed by Mr. P.  R.
\nDas  that  there  is  no  difficulty  on  the  part  of\t  an
\nincorporated  company to do all these acts by its  directors
\nor  managing  agents  or other officers\t empowered  in\tthat
\nbehalf by its articles of association, but his contention is
\nthat  the provisions of the Indian Companies Act should\t not
\nbe imported into the consideration of the provisions of\t his
\nAct.   He  relies primarily on the  case  of  Pharmaceutical
\nSociety\t v.  The London and Provincial\tSupply\tAssociation,
\nLimited(1) whore it was held,that a corporation
\n(1)  (1880) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 857.\n<\/p>\n
725<\/span><\/p>\n
did  not come within the word “person” used in the  Pharmacy
\nAct, 1868 (31 & 32 Vic., Chapter 121).\tReliance was  placed
\nupon  the  observations of Lord Selborne L.C. at  page\t863.
\nThe preamble to that Act recited, amongst other things, that
\nit was “expedient for the safety of the public that  persons
\nkeeping open shop for the retailing, dispensing or compound-
\ning of poisons, and persons known as chemists and  druggists
\nshould\tpossess\t a competent practical\tknowledge  of  their
\nbusiness.”  This  clearly comtemplated\tpersons\t skilled  in
\nmatters\t pharmaceutical and not impersonal corporate  bodies
\nwhich  would  know nothing about that  particular  business.
\nIndeed,\t Lord Blackburn in his speech in the House of  Lords
\nin  the\t Pharmaceutical Society’s case(1) referred  to\tthis
\npreamble and observed at page 870:-\n<\/p>\n
    “Stopping there, it is quite plain. that those who used
\nthat   language\t were  not  thinking  of  corporations.\t   A
\ncorporation may in one’ sense, for all substantial  purposes
\nof  protecting the public, possess a competent knowledge  of
\nits business,, if it employs competent directors,  managers,
\nand  so\t forth.\t  But it cannot possibly  have\ta  competent
\nknowledge  in  itself.\tThe metaphysical entity,  the  legal
\n‘person’, the corporation, cannot possibly have a  competent
\nknowledge.  Nor I think, can a corporation be supposed to be
\na ‘person known as a chemist and druggist’.”
\n   His Lordship then referred to the provisions of sections
\n1  and\t15 of that Act and came to the conclusion  that\t the
\nword  “person”\tin that Act. meant a  natural  person.\t The
\neffect of ‘that case is that whether the word “Person” in  a
\nstatute\t can  be  treated as including\ta  corporation\tmust
\ndepend\ton a consideraiion of the object of the statute\t and
\nof  the enactments passed with a view to carry\tthat  object
\ninto  effect.  In view of the object of that Act as  recited
\nin  the preamble there could be no manner of doubt that\t the
\nword  “person”\tin that Act could not  possibly,  include  a
\ncorporation.   Lord  Selborne towards the end  of  page\t 863
\nindicated, by reference to the 18th
\n(1)  (188o) L.R. 5 App.\t Cas. 857
\n726<\/span>
\nsection, that the legislature by the word “person”  referred
\nonly  to individual persons as it was clearly  repugnant  to
\nthe subject of that Act to include a corporation within\t the
\nword  “person”\tas used in ‘that Act.  Mr. P. R.  Das  urges
\nthat  the judgment of Lord Selborne was founded on the\tfact
\nthat the corporation could not come within the term “person”
\non  the\t ground\t that it could not make\t an  application  in
\nwriting\t signed by it.\tFrom this Mr. P. R. Das\t urges\tthat
\nthe  necessary implication of this part of the\tjudgment  of
\nLord  Selborne\tis that it was not permissible to  take\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Companies Act  into  consideration\t for
\nconstruing another Act.\t If that were the implication of the
\nspeech\tof  Lord Selborne, with respect, we  are  unable  to
\naccept\tthe  same.  Indeed, one cannot think  of  a  company
\nunless one has in view the provisions of the Companies\tAct,
\nfor  a\tcompany is the creature of the Companies  Act.\t Its
\nexistence, powers and rights are all regulated by that\tAct.
\nThe  trend of the, speeches of the noble Lords in  the\tcase
\nrelied\ton  by\tMr.  P. R. Das is that\tthe  object  of\t the
\nparticular Act under consideration was entirely repugnant to
\nthe  word  “corporation”  being\t included  within  the\tterm
\n“Person”  as used in that Act, and as we apprehend it,\tthat
\ndecision lays down nothing beyond that.\n<\/p>\n
  In  support  of his contention that a company\t owning\t an
\nestate\twas never intended to be affected by the Act,  Mr.P.
\nR. Das draws our attention to the winding up sections of the
\nIndian\tCompanies Act and urges that it is not\tpossible  to
\nfit in the scheme of winding up into the scheme of the Bihar
\nAct.  If the Zamindari assets of the company are taken\tover
\nand compensation is paid by non-transferable bonds it  will,
\nhe  contends, be impossible, to apply the law of winding  up
\nin  case  the company goes into\t liquidation.\tThere  will,
\naccording  to him, be conflict of jurisdiction\tbetween\t the
\nCourt  where  the  winding  up\tis  proceeding,\t which\t may
\nconceivably  be in another State, land the Bihar  Government
\nand  its  officers.  ‘We see no force  in  this\t contention.
\nUpon a
\n727<\/span>
\nnotification  being  issued under section 3,  the  Zamindari
\nestate will vest in the State and the company will cease  to
\nhave any interest in it.  Its only right will be to  receive
\ncompensation.\tIn  case of winding up the  liquidator\twill
\nhave  to pursue the remedy provided by this Act.  He or\t the
\ncompany\t will  be  in no worse position\t than  the  official
\nassignee  or official receiver of an  individual  proprietor
\nwho may happen to become insolvent in another State.
\n    Finally, Mr. P. R. Das strongly relies on section 41 of
\nthe  Act  and  contends that that section  would  be  wholly
\ninapplicable  to a company and that circumstance  by  itself
\nwould  indicate\t that the Bihar Legislature did\t not  intend
\nthat  a company owning an estate should be governed by\tthis
\nAct.   A corporation, it is true, cannot be made liable\t for
\ntreason,  felony  or  any  misdemeanour\t involving  personal
\nviolence  or for any offence for which the only penalty\t is.
\nimprisonment or corporal punishment. (Halsbury, 2nd Edition,
\nVolume IX, article 5, p. 14).  Section 41 does not prescribe
\npunishment  by\timprisonment only.  Mr. P. R.  Das  suggests
\nthat  the  infliction of imprisonment or fine  would  depend
\nupon the gravity of the offence and not on the character  of
\nthe  offender.\t This argument, however, would seem  to\t run
\ncounter to the opinion of Lord Blackburn set forth at  pages
\n869-870\t of the report of the very case relied on by Mr.  P.
\nR. Das.\t The recent cases of Director of Public Prosecutions
\nv. Kent and Sussex Contractors Limited(1) and Rex v.  I.C.B.
\nHaulage,  Limited  and Another(2) seem to  indicate  that  a
\ncorporation may be convicted even of an offence requiring an
\nact  of will or a state of mind.  Apart, however,  from\t the
\nconsideration whether a company may be held guilty of wilful
\nfailure\t or  neglect, as to which we need  not\texpress\t any
\ndefinite   opinion  on\tthis  occasion,\t there\tcan  be\t  no
\ndifficulty  in applying the provisions of section 41 to\t the
\nofficers or agents of the company.  On a notification  under
\nsection 3(1) being published the estate vests in the  State.
\nSection 4 sets out the
\n(1) [1944] I.K.B. 14  6.  (2) [1944] I.K.B. 551.\n<\/p>\n
728<\/span><\/p>\n
consequences  of such vesting.\tClause (g) of  that  section
\nempowers  the  Collector  by written  order  served  in\t the
\nprescribed  manner to require any person in  possession\t of.
\nsuch  an  estate or tenure  or any part thereof to  give  up
\npossession of the same by a date specified in the order\t and
\nto take such steps or use such force as may be necessary for
\nsecuring compliance with the said order.  If any officer  or
\nagent  of  the\tcompany\t in the\t possession  of\t the  estate
\nwilfully fails or ignores to comply with such lawful  order,
\nthen  surely he can be proceeded against under\tsection\t 41.
\nLikewise, under section 40, the. officers therein  mentioned
\nare  authorized\t at  any time before or after  the  date  of
\nvesting\t by a written order served in the prescribed  manner
\nto require a proprietor or tenureholder or any other  person
\nin  possession of such an estate or tenure or any agents  or
\nemployees of such proprietor, tenure-holder or other  person
\nto  produce at a time and place specified in the order\tsuch
\ndocuments,  papers or registers or to furnish such  informa-
\ntion  relating to such estate or tenure as such officer\t may
\nfrom  time to time require for any of the purposes  of\tthis
\nAct.  A wilful failure or neglect to comply with such  order
\nwould clearly bring the recalcitrant officer or agent of the
\ncompany\t within\t the  penalty  provided\t under\tsection\t 41.
\nSection\t 41  therefore, does not  necessarily  preclude\t the
\napplication of the Act to incorporated companies.
\n It cannot be denied that a company is competent to own and
\nhold  property.\t  The whole. object of the impugned  Act  is
\nthus stated by Mahajan J. in the State of Bihar v. Kameshwar
\nSingh<\/a>(1):\n<\/p>\n
  ”  Now it is obvious that concentration of big blocks\t of
\nland  in the hands of a few individuals is contrary  to\t the
\nprinciple on which the Constitution of India is based.\t The
\npurpose of the acquisition contemplated by the impugned\t Act
\ntherefore is to do away with the concentration of big blocks
\nof  land  and  means of production in the  hands  of  a\t few
\nindividuals  and to so distribute the ownership and  control
\nof the
\n(1)  [1952] S.C. R. 889 at p. 941.\n<\/p>\n
729<\/span><\/p>\n
material  resources which come in the hands of the State  as
\nto  subserve the common good as best as possible.  In  other
\nwords,\tshortly put, the purpose behind the Act is to  bring
\nabout a reform in the land distribution system of Bihar\t for
\nthe general benefit of the community as advised.”
\n  In   view  of\t this,\tpurpose\t there\tis  no\treason\t to
\ndifferentiate between an individual proprietor and a company
\nwhich  owns estates or tenures.\t Indeed, there is  not\tonly
\nnothing repugnant in the subject or context of the Act which
\nshould\tprevent\t the inclusion of a  company  owning  estate
\nwithin\tthe  definition of “proprietor”, such  inclusion  is
\nnecessary in order to give full effect to the very object of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
  In  Appeal  No.  63  of 1953 Mr.  P.\tR.  Das\t raises\t an
\nadditional point, namely, that the appellant company in that
\nappeal\towns  estates  which are situate in  Purnea  in\t the
\ndistrict  of  Bihar  and in Malda in the  district  of\tWest
\nBengal\tbut  it has to pay a single  Government\t revenue  at
\nPurnea.\t  It is further alleged that the  appellant  company
\nhas let out portions of the estates on Patni leases, each of
\nthe  Patnis comprising land situate both within and  outside
\nBihar.\tThe acquisition of that part of the estate, which is
\nsituate\t in Bihar has made it difficult, if not\t impossible,
\nfor the appellant company to pay its revenue or recover\t its
\nrent.\tThat part of the estate which is in Bihar cannot  be
\nsevered\t from  the  rest  and  therefore  the\tnotification
\ncovering only the portion of the estate situate in Bihar  is
\ninvalid.   We  do not think there is any substance  in\tthis
\nargument.   As stated by the High Court it is a simple\tcase
\nof  apportionment of the revenue and also  apportionment  of
\nthe  rent.   The  necessity for\t such  apportionment  cannot
\npossibly affect the validity of the notification.
\n  For  reasons stated above these appeals fail and must\t be
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tAppeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellants: B. B. Biswas.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.\n<\/p>\n
730<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 320, 1953 SCR 720 Author: S R Das Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: MOTIPUR ZAMINDARI CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMotipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And ... on 17 April, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And ... on 17 April, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1953-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-19T14:06:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T14:06:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\"},\"wordCount\":3297,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\",\"name\":\"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And ... on 17 April, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T14:06:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And ... on 17 April, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And ... on 17 April, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-19T14:06:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953","datePublished":"1953-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T14:06:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953"},"wordCount":3297,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953","name":"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And ... on 17 April, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T14:06:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motipur-zamindari-co-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-on-17-april-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Motipur Zamindari Co. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And … on 17 April, 1953"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}