9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual rental of ₹ 236/8/6 for the construction of houses thereon which could be rented out. THE estate of Mustaque Ali Khan vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act . Mohini Devi created a trust in the name of her deceased husband of which the appellant was the Secretary. THE disputed land continued to remain in his possession in that capacity. In 1956-57 proceedings were started for the acquisition of the disputed land for extension of the Darbhanga Medical College. An amount of ₹ 12,689/2/- was assessed as compensation for the property which had been acquired and an award was made in the joint names of the appellant and the State of Bihar. Because the appellant objected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there been any intention of using this land for the construction of a house, the construction would have been taken in hand after obtaining the settlement. This was not done. THE expansion of the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital was well known, and the possibility of obtaining advantage out of that expansion obviously attracted the purchaser. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that the revenue authorities had not referred to any specific evidence in respect of their conclusion on the question of loss to the State being the object of settlement. THE High Court, however, was of the view that this contention was not well founded. This is what the High Court said : Here the finding is based on circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he person claiming under it. The order of the Deputy Collector as well as the Commissioner says that both the authorities were considerably influenced by the rental of ₹ 3.00 per katha at which the settlement had been made. The High Court also was of the view that this fact weighed with the authorities among other considerations in coming to the conclusion that the settlement had been made with a view to causing considerable loss to the State Government. In our opinion neither the revenue authorities nor the High Court took into consideration the absence of any proof having been adduced with regard to the actual rate of settlement prevailing at the time when the settlement of the disputed land was made. We are altogether unable to und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
