State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Dulhin Shanti Devi

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 25 April, 1961

Coram: B.P. Sinha, A.K. Sarkar, K.C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.R. Mudholkar

In this matter, the Supreme Court of India heard an appeal arising from a decision of the Patna High Court dated 25 April 1961. The case was titled State of Bihar and Others versus Dulhin Shanti Devi and was decided by a bench consisting of Justices B. P. Sinha, A. K. Sarkar, K. C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar. The judgment was authored by Justice K. C. Das Gupta. The appeal challenged the High Court’s order directing that a writ of certiorari be issued on an application filed by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent, identified as Dulhin Shanti Devi, asserted that she held the status of raiyat in possession of certain plots mentioned in the application and therefore possessed the right to conduct a mela on those lands. The revenue authorities, however, intended to levy tolls on the mela and had rejected her objections. It was acknowledged that the former proprietor of the estates containing the lands was the husband of the respondent. While the respondent claimed that her husband had effected a bona‑fic​e settlement transferring raiyati rights over the lands to her, the revenue authorities disregarded that claim and treated the lands as the proprietor’s bakasht holdings. The High Court chose not to explore whether the settlement was a mere paper arrangement or a genuine transfer. Instead, it expressed the view that even assuming the lands were bakasht, the State Government did not possess the authority to hold a mela there. Consequently, the High Court ordered the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby setting aside the orders passed by the revenue officers.

The State of Bihar and its officials, having obtained special leave, filed the present appeal against the High Court’s decision. Subsequently, in 1959 and after the grant of special leave, the Bihar Legislature amended the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh (Civil Appeal Nos. 27/60, 574/60, 351/59, 92/60, 285/60 and Writ Petitions Nos. 20 and 106/60) pronounced on the same day, noting that the amendment produced a specific legal consequence. According to the amendment, from the date on which the estates vested in the State, the State acquired the right to hold a mela on the proprietor’s bakasht lands, while the proprietor lost that right. Accordingly, the legal position was articulated as follows: if the alleged settlement made by the proprietor, Shri Narendra Prasad Narain Singh, in favour of his wife was merely a paper transaction, the State possessed the authority to hold melas on the disputed lands and the respondent, Dulhin Shanti Devi, had no such right. Conversely, if the settlement granting raiyati rights to the respondent was a genuine and bona‑fic​e transaction, the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar would not affect her entitlement to hold a mela on those lands. The High Court, however, had deemed it unnecessary to examine this issue because, under the law as it stood before the 1959 amendment, it had no difficulty concluding that, irrespective of the nature of the settlement, the government could not interfere with the petitioner’s right to hold a mela on the lands.

The Court observed that, following the amendment of 1959, the earlier judgment had easily concluded that, irrespective of whether the alleged settlement was genuine, the Government was not entitled to interfere with the petitioner’s entitlement to conduct the Mela on the disputed lands. The Court now noted that, in view of the law as it presently stands, the issue of whether the settlement was a benami arrangement—meaning a false or nominal conveyance—has become material. Applying the well‑settled principle that the factual situation presented should be regarded as the actual state of affairs unless contrary evidence is produced, the Court examined the record before it. Based on the material available, the Court determined that, for the purposes of the present petition, the petitioner, Shanti Devi, should be considered to have become a bona‑fide raiyat through her husband prior to the vesting of the estate in the State. Consequently, the High Court’s order granting a writ of certiorari in her favour was affirmed and left undisturbed. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs. The Court further indicated that the State and its officials retained the right, in suitable proceedings before a competent court, to prove that the 1944 settlement made in favor of the respondent was merely a sham or nominal transaction and that it was never intended to transfer any genuine title to the lands.