http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UPENDRA NARAIN SINGH(DEED) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)27

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  of Bihar  High Court made in Second Appeal No.311 of 1979  on April  29, 1982. The admitted facts are that the appellant had  in his  possession 9 bighas 16 kathas of land bearing S.P.  No.2775/40 under  Khata  797,  Tauzi  No.22230 (new) 10828(old)  situated in Mohalla Sikandarpur within the municipal limits  of Muzaffarpur. The said land is a portion of old  plot No.2775  which  in  the  cadestrol  survey  was recorded as  Gairmajrua Man under the proprietorship of Khan Bahadur Nawab  Sayed Ali Sajjad and others. He claimed patta thereunder from  the year  1942 given  by the said Zamindar, ex-landlord. By  operation of  Section 3  of the  Bihar land Reforms Act,  1950 (for  short, the  ’Act’) on  and from the date of  the notification published under sub-section (2) of Section 3  of the  Act, all  the lands  stand vested  in the State free from all encumbrances except those lands excluded by operation of the provisions of Section 4. Section 4(h) of the Act envisages that:      "The Collector  shall have power to      make inquiries  in respect  of  any      transfer including  the  settlement      or lease  of any  land comprised in      such  estate   or  tenure   or  the      transfer of any kind of interest in      any  building   used  primarily  as      office   or    cutchery   for   the      collection of  rent of  such estate      or tenure  or part  thereof, and if      he is  satisfied that such transfer      was made  at  any  time  after  the      first day of January 1946, with the      object of  defeating any provisions      of this  Act or causing loss to the      State    or     obtaining    higher      compensation    thereunder,     the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Collector   may,    after    giving      reasonable notice  to  the  parties      concerned to  appear and  be  heard      annul such  transfer, disposes  the      person   claiming   it   and   take      possession of such property on such      terms  as   may   appear   to   the      Collector   to    be    fair    and      equitable."      An enquiry  in this  behalf was  conducted and  it  was found that the patta got by the appellant on August 11, 1950 was a  fraudulent transfer  in favour  of the  appellant  to defeat the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it was rejected and became  final. Thereafter,  the appellant came to file a title suit  for declaration  of title which was dismissed by the trial  Court and confirmed by the appellate Court and in second appeal,  the High Court dismissed it summarily. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      Shri L.R. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that  though  the  finding  was  recorded  by  the Tribunals and  the civil  Court, the  transfer was  effected after January  1, 1946,  namely, August 11, 1950 with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act; under second proviso to clause (h)  of Section  4 of the Act, the Government had not confirmed such annulment; so it has not become effective and the courts  below have  committed grievous  error in  giving effect to  the decision  of the Collector under Section 4(h) of the  Act. We  find no force in the contention. It is true that under  the proviso no order cancelling or annulling the transfer shall take effect nor possession taken in pursuance of it  unless such  an order has been confirmed by the State Government. The  confirmation is  one of administrative acts so as  to ensure  the order  passed by  the Collector  to be according to law. It is seen that the statute prescribed the period during  which  the  transactions  took  place  to  be enquired into  to find whether they are genuine transactions or spurious  or fraudulent  brought  to  into  existence  to defeat the  provisions of  the Act.  In view of the findings recorded concurrently  by the Tribunal under the Act and the civil Courts that the patta came to be executed in favour of the appellant  on August  11, 1950  after the specified date with a  view to  defeat  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the transfer was  a fraudulent  one. Under  these circumstances, the confirmation of such an annulment of the transfer by the State Government being administrative in nature, it does not cloth any  right on  the appellant at any stage. Under these circumstances, the  decree of the civil Courts and the order passed by the Collector are not vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.