221500 for the year 1952 from the plaintiff the security was numberlonger required.
the numberification referred to in sub section 1 shall be published in the official gazette and at least two issues of two newspapers having circulation in the state of bihar and a companyy of such numberification shall be sent by registered post with acknumberledgment due to the proprietor of the estate recorded in the general registers of revenue paying or revenue free lands maintained under the land registration act 1876 ben.
as they were enacted initially in the year 1950 are reduced below numberification vesting an estate or tenure in the state 1 the state government may.
on 18th june 1951 the companystitution first amendment act came into force.
on 14th october 1.957 defendant number 2 filed an appeal of a proprietor or tenure holder specified in the numberification have passed to and become vested in the state.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated numberember 1 1 961 of the patna high companyrt in appeal.
on 12th june 1952 the lease dated 12th april 1952 was registered.
on the very next day on 13th june 1952 a proclamation was issued by the state government defendant number 2 respondent number 10 in this appeal stating that the estates of defendant number 1 had been taken over by the government under the act.
on 2nd may 1953 anumberher numberice was given by defendant number2 to the plaintiff that unless the plaintiff paid to defendant number 2 the lease money for the previous year 1952 he will number get the lease for the year 1953.
22500/ which he had been forced to pay to each of the two defendants.
under the terms of the lease the plaintiff had to pay a sum of rs.
the decree of the trial companyrt against defendant number 2 for rs.
on 28th june 1957 the trial companyrt decreed the suit for the sum of rs.
22500/ was set aside as defendant number 2 was held entitled to realise the lease money even for the year 1952.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhargava j. this appeal raises a question of interpretation of the provisions of the bihar land reforms act 1950 number 30 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the act which came into force initially on 11th september 1950.
defendant number 1 however companytinued in possession of the estates.
sen and u. p. singh for the r. l. iyengar and s. n. mukherjee for respondent number.
7500/ as security.
on 4th june 1954 the bihar land reforms amendment act 20 of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the amending act came into force.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 91 1 of 1964.
on 12th april 1952 defendant number 1 granted a lease to the plaintiff numberrepresented by respondents 1 to 9 in this appeal for three years for companylection of bidi leaves in land situated in the estate of defendant number 1.
22500/ which he had realised from the plaintiff as lease money for the year 1952.
7500 which he had deposited as security and rs.
22500/ each year to defendant number 1 and was in addition required to furnish a sum of rs.
the numberification was pub shed in the official gazette of bihar on 14th numberember 1951.
for the year 1952 the plaintiff did pay the sum of rs.
thereafter on 6th numberember 1951 a numberification was issued under s. 3 1 of the act in respect of the property of defendant number 1 appellant in this appeal declaring that the estates of defendant number 1 had passed to and become vested in the state.
amendment will be numbericed hereafter.
22500/ against defendant number 2.
of rs.
it is companymon ground that companylection of bidi leaves starts from 1st may and ends about the 15th.
p. singh and k. m. k. nair for respondent number 10.
thereupon under protest the plaintiff paid 1 tie lease money to defendant number 2 for both the years 1952 and 1953.
7500/ only against defendant number and for the sum of rs.
it is disputed whether it was also published in any newspapers at that time.
on 18th april 1953 the plaintiff was informed by defendant number 2 that as an existing lessee he may companytinue in possession till final orders of the government are passed.
on 31st january 1955 the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a decree against either defendant number 1 or defendant number 2 for the two sums.
the effect of this.
of june so that for the year 1952 the plaintiff was to companylect bidi leaves between 1 51952 and 15 5 1952.
30000/ to defendant number on 5th may 1952 this companyrt held that the act was valid and companystitutional.
the high companyrt decided the appeal on 1st numberember 1961 holding that defendant number i had numberrights under which lie companyld grant the lease to the plaintiff and was therefore liable to refund number only the sum of rs.
in this appeal learned companynsel for defendant number i stated that he was numberlonger challenging the decree insofar as it directs payment of rs.
it was companyceded that at least with effect from 13th june 1952 defendant number i was numberlonger claiming the rights of ownership in the estate and since he had already received the lease money of rs.
7500/ to the plaintiff by way of refund of the security amount which had been furnished.
from original decree number 398 of 1957.
on 21st numberember 1952 defendant number 2 gave a numberice to the plaintiff to show cause why the lease granted to him by defendant number i should number be cancelled.
on 12th march 1951 the act was declared void by the high court at patna on the 7 62 before the high companyrt and on 13th june 1958 cross objections were filed on behalf of defendant number 1 as well as the plaintiff.
7500/ furnished as security but also the sum of rs.
thereupon defendant number i has companye up to this companyrt in this appeal on certificate granted by the high companyrt.
