Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 13.11.1997 cancelling the petitioner's grandfather's Hukumnama, upholding constitutional validity concerns regarding Bihar Tenancy Act Section 49.
Order dated 13.11.1997 cancelling the Hukumnama relating to the petitioner set aside and writ petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12277 of 1999 (7) dt.24-11-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12277 of 1999
======================================================
Bhatu Paswan, S/o Lekho Paswan, Resident of village-Bhairoganj, police station-Chandan, District-Banka
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Das 2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp2)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
7 24-11-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 13.11.1997 passed by Additional Collector, Banka in Case No.8 of 1995-96 by which the sale deed, the plain Hukumnama executed in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner was cancelled.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Additional Collector cancelled the Hukumnama executed in favour of the grandfather of petitioner in view of the provisions contained in Section 49(1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act but a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhageran Thakur vs. Kewal Singh and Others, 1969 PLJR 30 held the provisions of Section
Patna High Court CWJC No.12277 of 1999 (7) dt.24-11-2017 2
49(c), Bihar Tenancy Act, 1955 as ultravires of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and on such, the Single Bench of this court set aside the order. Parduman Soren filed L.P.A. No.1097 of 1998 against the order passed in CWJC No.2379 of 1998 and L.P.A. No.1098 of 1998 against the order passed in CWJC No.2416 of 1998 which were referred to Full Bench and the Full Bench held that Section 49(c) of the Bihar Tenancy Act has already been held to be ultravires the Constitution as infringing the fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and, therefore, the order setting aside the Hukumnama and to return the land to the executant of the Hukumnama is illegal.
The learned A.C. to S.C.18 did not dispute the fact.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, order dated 13.11.1997 passed in Case No.8 of 1995-96 so far it relates to the petitioner is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Saurabh/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order cancelling the Hukumnama under Section 49(1) of Bihar Tenancy Act should be set aside
Whether Section 49(c) of the Bihar Tenancy Act is ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhageran Thakur vs. Kewal SinghExplained¶19
Bhageran Thakur vs. Kewal Singh and Others, 1969 PLJR 30
Parduman SorenFollowed¶21
Full Bench awarded in Parduman Soren case
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhatu Paswan
The State of Bihar
The Additional Collector, Banka
The Circle Officer, Chandan
The Commissioner, Bhagalpur
Pradhan Murmu
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
