1955 (10) TMI 32 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Officer under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
2. Validity of the khorposh grants made by respondent 2.
3. Whether the khorposh grants were made with the intent to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or to obtain higher compensation.
4. Whether the High Court can review the finding of fact by the Sub-divisional Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Officer under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Officer to annul the khorposh grants, arguing that the officer's finding that the grants were made to defeat the Bihar Land Reforms Act or to obtain higher compensation was speculative and unsupported by material evidence. The court agreed, stating that the Sub-divisional Officer's conclusion was arbitrary and not based on sufficient material. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Officer depended on a preliminary condition that the grants were made with a fraudulent intention, which was not established in this case.

2. Validity of the khorposh grants made by respondent 2:
The court examined the history and circumstances surrounding the khorposh grants, noting that they were made following a compromise between the parties in Title Suit No. 9 of 1918. The compromise was intended to settle long-standing disputes and was found to be bona fide and genuine. The court highlighted that the petitioners had relinquished their claims to self-acquired properties and past maintenance in exchange for the grants, which indicated that the grants were not merely substitutes for monetary allowances but part of a broader settlement.

3. Whether the khorposh grants were made with the intent to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or to obtain higher compensation:
The court found no evidence to support the Sub-divisional Officer's finding that the grants were made with a fraudulent intent. The court noted that the grants were made as part of a genuine compromise and that respondent 2 had no intention of defeating the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or seeking higher compensation. The court also referred to a letter from respondent 2 dated 23-4-1937, which corroborated the petitioners' claim that the grants were made in good faith.

4. Whether the High Court can review the finding of fact by the Sub-divisional Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court held that it had the authority to review the Sub-divisional Officer's finding of fact because the officer's jurisdiction depended on a preliminary finding of fraudulent intent. The court cited precedents to support the principle that where the jurisdiction of an administrative authority depends on a preliminary finding of fact, the High Court can independently determine whether that finding is correct. The court rejected the argument that the officer's satisfaction under Section 4(h) was subjective and not subject to review, stating that the satisfaction must be reasonable and based on adequate material.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the orders of the Additional Sub-divisional Officer of Giridih dated 18-2-1954 and 5-10-1954, cancelling the khorposh grants and directing the petitioners to give up possession of the villages, were without jurisdiction and null and void. The court issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the two orders and allowed the application with costs.