Sant Saran Goswami @ Deoji vs State Of Bihar And Ors

The appellant is in possession of 15.36 acres of land of village Baletha under Siwan Prakhand, State of Bihar, Dhanauti Math of Kabir Panth was notified under S.10(l) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act 1961, (for short, the Act). When the proceed-ings were initiated, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by his proceedings dated 15,4.1976 held that the appellant is a separate Math and that there-fore, the land held by the appellant could not be included in the lands of Dhanauti Math. The Dhanauti Math carried the matter in appeal in respect of other lands and also in further revision to the Board of Revenue, While the revision was pending, by Amendment Act Section 32-A was brought on statute w.e.f. 6.4.1981. The effect of the amendment is that all pending proceedings stood abated. Thereafter power has been given to start suo motu ceiling proceedings afresh. In exercise of the power, the Dy. Collector, Land Reforms initiated the proceedings on 12.8.81. In those proceedings it was held that Dhanauti Math is having several maths under its management like Bharatheri Math Maujahidpur Math etc. including the appellant Math and therefore, all the lands are held by Dhanauti Math. Accordingly ceiling on the holding was determined. On appeal, it was confirmed and on further revision, the Board of Revenue by order dated 19.1.84 confirmed the same. When the appellant filed the C.W.J.C. No. 1241/84 in the High Court challenging the correctness of the findings recorded by the authorities, by order dated 10.7.84 the High Court dis-missed the same in limine. Thus this appeal, by special leave.

It is firstly contended that reopening of proceedings is bad in law. The main reason on which the contention raised is that the Dy. Collector had declared by his proceedings dt. 15.4.76 that the appellant was a separate entity and that independently held the land. It was allowed to become final. Therefore, there was no proceedings pending in consequence of which the abatement had not taken place by operation of Sec.32-A. Unfortunately, we cannot give acceptance to the contention for the reason that reopened proceedings were allowed to become final as they were not challenged by filing any writ petition in the High Court. In computation proceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise this contention.

It is next contended that the appellant is only a subsidiary to Dhanauti Math and it is not a family as defined under Sec. 2(ee) of the Act and that therefore, the lands held by the appellant cannot be included in the land by Dhanauti Math. This contention too has no force.

Section 2(ee) reads thus :

"2(ee) "Family means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor children.

Explanation I.........In this clause the word "person" includes any company, institution, trust, association, or body of individuals whether incorporated or not.

Explanation II...............The person law shall not be relevant or be taken into consideration in determining the composition of the family for the purposes of the Act."

Though the main part of 'family' has been widely defined to mean and include enumerated entities, explanation-I makes the matter amply clear that the word 'person' includes any company, institution, trust, association or any body of individuals whether incorporated or not. The revisional authority concluded after considering the evidence thus :

"On a perusal of the order of the learned D.C.L.R. Siwan dated 15.4.1976 (Annexure V to the petition for revision) shows that Mahanth Muneshwar Goswami of Dhanauti Math had stated that there were several subsidiary Math under the Dhanauti Math such as Bharatheri Math, Baletha Math, Maajahidpur Math etc. In addition to this it is also admitted that the Mahanth of Baletha Math was impleaded on a party in the Title Suit relating to Dhanauti Math. Both these facts clearly indicate that Baletha Math is a part of Dhanauti Math, If this was not so the petitioner could have easily produced the registration papers of Dhanauti Math to indicate that Baletha Math was not part of the same. He should have also produced a certificate from the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to confirm that Baletha Math and Dhanauti Math were separate identities and has, nothing to do with one another. Though ample time was available to the petitioner - landholder, he did not do so."

In view of the finding that Baletha Math is part of Dhanauti Math, admittedly it is a trust. Therefore it cannot be treated to be a subsidiary as contended for in the light to the finding by the final revisional authority.

It is next contended that the above finding is not based on evidence and the reasoning is perverse and therefore it is open to this Court to go into the question and decide the matter afresh. We are afraid we cannot accede to this contention. It is seen that the revisional authority and all the authorities on appreciation of evidence concurrently came to the conclusion that the appellant's Math is a part of Dhanauti Math. It being a finding of fact on consideration of material placed before the authorities, it is not open to this Court to appreciate the finding and to come to a different conclusion.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.