9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under s. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings. The property regarding which a contention is raised that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the constitution are alleged to have been infringed, is a plot of land within the municipal limits of Hazaribagh in Bihar together with certain buildings and structures thereon. The property originally belonged to the Ramgarh Raj. There is a dispute as to the manner in which this property was being enjoyed by the then proprietors and so we shall at this stage refrain from saying anything about it. On January 16, 1948 the Raja of Ramgarh granted a lease of this property in favour of his younger brother Basant Nar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It was the contention of the State that the buildings on the property which were the subject of the lease dated January 16, 1948 were being used by the Raj primarily as an office or kutcheri for the collection of rent - a fact which however was disputed and is a subject of contest in the proceedings now sought to be quashed. On November 27, 1955 a notice was issued to Basant Narain to show cause why the lease executed in his favour on January 16, 1948 should not be set aside under the power conferred upon the Collector by s. 4(h). Basant Narain submitted his objections and stated that the leased properties were not covered by s. 4(h). Before however this enquiry was completed, Basant Narain surrendered his leasehold interest to the assig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se therefore turns on whether the property satisfies the conditions on which the section is attracted. The relief sought in this petition is based on two allegations : (1) that the land on which the buildings stand is raiyati land and therefore could not be taken possession of by the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and (2) that the buildings standing thereon were previously used for the residential purpose of the Raja and his family and not as a kutcheri. The enquiry has been proceeding before the Collector in regard to these two points and it may be mentioned that when the petitioner applied to this Court for a stay of proceedings before the Collector this Court passed an order permitting the enquiry to continue, though it stayed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
