1961 JTR(SC) 133
1967 AIR(SC) 427 ; 1962 BLJR 104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
State of Bihar and others, Appellants
Versus
Dulhin Shanti Devi, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 519 of 1959, dated 25-4- 1961.
Advocates appeared
M/s. L. M. Sharma and D. P. Singh, Advocates, for Appellants. Mr. Hardev Singh and Mr. Y. Kumar, Advocates, for Respondent.
If a raiyati settlement is bona fide, the vesting of an estate in the State does not extinguish the right to hold a Mela on those lands. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, an apparent settlement is presumed to be genuine.
Act
Referred
:BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT
: S.4, S.6
(A) Land Reforms Act - Right to hold Mela on Bakasht lands - Amendment to the Act - Vesting of estates in the State - If the settlement of raiyati rights in favour of a person is real and bona fide, the vesting of the estate in the State does not affect the right to hold a Mela on such lands - If the settlement is a mere paper transaction, the State has the right to hold Melas on the Bakasht lands of the proprietor from the date of vesting. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Evidence - Presumption of genuineness - The apparent state of things should be taken to be the real state of things, unless the contrary is shown. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, claiming to be a raiyat in possession of certain plots, asserted the right to hold a Mela on the said lands. The revenue authorities rejected the objections, contending that the lands were Bakasht lands of the proprietor and proposed to settle the right to collect tolls. The respondent claimed a bona fide settlement of the lands in raiyati by the ex-proprietor. The High Court had previously quashed the orders of the revenue officers, holding that the State had no right to hold Melas on such lands.
Findings of Court:
Based on the materials on record and the principle that the apparent state of things is presumed real unless proven otherwise, the respondent is held to have genuinely become a raiyat before the date of vesting.
Issues: Whether the settlement of raiyati rights in favour of the respondent was a bona fide transaction or a sham/paper transaction, and consequently, whether the right to hold the Mela vested with the respondent or the State following the amendment to the Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the settlement was real and bona fide, the vesting of the estate in the State would not affect the raiyat's right to hold the Mela. Conversely, if the settlement was a sham, the amended law granted the State the right to hold Melas on Bakasht lands. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, the apparent settlement was accepted as genuine.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Evidence - Presumption of genuineness - The apparent state of things should be taken to be the real state of things, unless the contrary is shown. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, claiming to be a raiyat in possession of certain plots, asserted the right to hold a Mela on the said lands. The revenue authorities rejected the objections, contending that the lands were Bakasht lands of the proprietor and proposed to settle the right to collect tolls. The respondent claimed a bona fide settlement of the lands in raiyati by the ex-proprietor. The High Court had previously quashed the orders of the revenue officers, holding that the State had no right to hold Melas on such lands.
Findings of Court:
Based on the materials on record and the principle that the apparent state of things is presumed real unless proven otherwise, the respondent is held to have genuinely become a raiyat before the date of vesting.
Issues: Whether the settlement of raiyati rights in favour of the respondent was a bona fide transaction or a sham/paper transaction, and consequently, whether the right to hold the Mela vested with the respondent or the State following the amendment to the Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the settlement was real and bona fide, the vesting of the estate in the State would not affect the raiyat's right to hold the Mela. Conversely, if the settlement was a sham, the amended law granted the State the right to hold Melas on Bakasht lands. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, the apparent settlement was accepted as genuine.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Amendment - Used to determine that after the 1959 amendment to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State acquired the right to hold Mela on the bakasht lands of the proprietor.
D.P.Singh, HARDEV SINGH, L.M.SHARMA, Y.Kumar
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal is against an order of the Patna High Court directing the issue of a writ of certiorari on the application of the respondent under Art. 223 of the Constitution, that though she as the raiyat in possession of the plots mentioned in the application had the right to hold Mela thereupon the Revenue authorities wore proposing to settle the right to collect tolls from the Mela and her objections had been rejected. Admittedly the ex-proprietor of the estates in which these lands lay was her husband, and while she claimed that there was a bona fide settlement of these lands with her in raiyati by her husband the Revenue authorities disregarded the settlement and proceeded on the basis that these lands were the Bakasht lands of the proprietor himself. The High Court did not find it necessary to consider the question whether the settlement was merely a paper transaction or a real settlement with the petitioners. It was of opinion that even assuming that the lands were Bakasht of the proprietor the State Government had no right to hold Melas thereupon. In that view the High Court directed the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the Revenue officers.
2. Against this decision the State of Bihar and its officers have filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave.
3. In 1959 after the special leave was obtained the Bihar Legislature amended the Bihar Land Reforms Act and as we have decided in State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh, C. A. Nos. 27/60, 574 /60, 351/59, 92/60, 285/60 and Writ Petns. Nos. 20 and 106/60: in which judgment has been pronounced this day the consequence of the amendment is that the State had and the proprietor had not with effect from the date from the vesting of the "estates" in the State, the right to hold Mela on the bakasht lands of the proprietor.
4. The position therefore, is that if the alleged settlement by the proprietor Shri Narendra Prasad Narain Singh in favour of his wife was a mere paper transaction the State has the right to hold Melas on the lands in question and the respondent Dulhin Shanti Devi has not got such right. If on the other hand, the alleged settlement of a raiyati right on the lands in her favour was real and bona fide transaction the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar would in no way affect her right to hold the Mela on the lands.
5. The High Court found it unnecessary to examine this matter, as on the law as it stood before the amendment in 1959, it had no difficulty in holding that whether the settlement was real or not, Government could not interfere with the petitioner s right to hold Mela on the lands. On the law as it now glands, the question whether the: settlement was benami or not becomes important. Proceeding, however, on the well established principle that the apparent state of things should be taken to be the real state of things, unless the contrary is shown, we think that on the materials on the record, the petitioner Shanti Devi should for the purpose of the present pension, be held to have become genuinely a raiyat under her husband, before the date of vesting. The order of the High Court issuing the writ of certiorari in her favour should, therefore, stand.
6. The appeal is dismissed with costs. It would, however, be open to the State and its officials to establish in appropriate proceedings before a competent Court, that the settlement of 1944 in favour of the respondent is sham and nominal and was not intended to convey any real title to the lands.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1967 SC 427