Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal against a High Court judgment that had dismissed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 for retransfer of certain lands. The appellants, legal representatives of the original claimant, sought to exercise a pre-emptive right as co-sharer or adjoining raiyat over lands sold by respondent No.5 to respondent No.7. The transaction involved 5 kathas of survey plot No. 610 and 6 kathas 10 dhurs of survey plot No. 614, purchased for Rs. 4,600 by a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1969, for the purpose of constructing a house in Mohalla Sahjadpur Aderkila, within the town of Hajipur. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms initially dismissed the application, holding that the transferred lands were not 'land' within the meaning of the Act. The Collector, however, allowed the appeal, and the Member, Board of Revenue dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which quashed the Collector and Board orders and dismissed the application, finding that the lands were situated in an urban area of Hajipur and were urban in nature, hence the Act including Section 16(3) did not apply. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'land' under Section 2(f) of the Act, which includes land used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture, and the homestead of a land-holder. The Court observed that the sole object of the Act is to put a ceiling on agricultural and horticultural land and to declare surplus land, not to regulate urban land meant for construction. It held that land in the heart of cities for building purposes is not 'land' within Section 2(f). The Court noted that many urban areas were once agricultural but changed character due to urbanisation. Therefore, mere description as Bhit land in the khatian was not conclusive proof of agricultural nature. The Court directed that whenever an application under Section 16(3) is filed for urban land, the authorities or High Court must first examine the primary object for which the land is used or capable of being used. If the purpose is non-agricultural, the application should not be entertained. The Supreme Court agreed with the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Fakir Mohammad v. Salahuddin & Ors., AIR 1975 Patna 119, which held that land fit for building purposes not connected with agriculture in town or bazaar areas is not the homestead of a land-holder and therefore not 'land' under Section 2(f). Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's findings were correct: the lands in question were in the urban area of Hajipur, and the pre-emptor had not established that the disputed land was 'land' within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal failed and was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The appellant was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in connection with the application under Section 16(3), with refund to be made within three months from the date of filing the application on behalf of the appellant.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Definition of Land - Scope of 'Land' under Section 2(f) - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, Sections 2(f), 2(g), 4 - The Act's sole object is to impose ceiling on agricultural and horticultural land and declare surplus, not to regulate urban building plots. The term 'land' includes only land used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture, or homestead of a land-holder; land in urban areas meant for construction of buildings is excluded. Held that land within town of Hajipur purchased for house construction was not 'land' under Section 2(f). B) Pre-emption - Pre-emption under Section 16(3) - Applicability to Urban Land - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, Section 16(3) - Pre-emption right under Section 16(3) is confined to transfers of 'land' as defined under the Act. Where transferred land is urban and not covered by Section 2(f), an application under Section 16(3) must be dismissed. Court directed authorities to first examine whether primary object of use is agricultural/horticultural or non-agricultural before entertaining such application. Held that High Court rightly dismissed application as lands were urban in nature. C) Evidence - Evidentiary Value of Khatian Entry - Bhit Land Description - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, Sections 2(f), 16(3) - Merely because land was recorded as Bhit land in the khatian did not conclusively prove agricultural character; urbanisation and development of Hajipur town could explain such record. High Court's factual finding that land was urban and not agricultural was upheld. Held that survey description is not conclusive proof of agricultural nature in urban areas.
Issue of Consideration
Whether expression 'land' as defined in Section 2(f) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 includes urban land meant for building purposes, thereby attracting pre-emption under Section 16(3).
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. Appellant permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in connection with the application under Section 16(3); refund to be made within three months from date of filing application on behalf of appellant.
Law Points
- Land under Section 2(f) covers land used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture and homestead of land-holder
- urban land for building not included
- pre-emption under Section 16(3) only for transfers of 'land' as defined
- primary object of land use determines applicability
- khatian entry of Bhit land not conclusive
- sole object of Act is ceiling on agricultural/horticultural land
