1996 (4) TMI 446 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the bazars governed by the provisions of the Act stand vested in the State under Section 4(a) of the Act? Whether hats or bazars are synonymous of market commonly understood in common language or is a hat or bazar as understood in oriental language of conducting daily or bi-weekly or weekly bazar etc? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Though other buildings situated in the estate other than those vasted under Section 4 (a) read with Sections 7A 7B and 7C with in the estate held by an intermediary/tenure-holder stand vested in the State are deemed to be settled on the intermediary either under Section 5 read with Section 7 or Section 6 subject to reasonable rent determine by the Collector under Section 7 the rules made under the Act and under all other relevant provisions operating in that behalf. But this interpretation will not have any effect on the right title and interest held by any other individual owner whose property was not take over under the Act. We hold that the Full Bench division is not vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Meaning of the word "Bazar" within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950.
2. Whether the shops are "homestead" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act.
3. Constitutionality of the vesting of hats and bazars in the State under the Act.
4. Distinction between rural and urban bazars under the Act.
5. Validity of the Full Bench decision of the High Court.
6. Interpretation of Sections 3, 4(a), 5, 7A, and 7B of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Meaning of the word "Bazar" within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950:
The Supreme Court examined the term "Bazar" as used in Section 4(a) of the Act, concluding that "Bazar" refers to a market where regular buying and selling activities take place. The Court noted that the essential feature of a bazar is the regular conduct of commercial activities, which distinguishes it from hats and melas. The Court affirmed the High Court's interpretation that the term "Bazar" includes complexes of shops where commercial activities are conducted regularly, regardless of whether tolls are collected.

2. Whether the shops are "homestead" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act:
The appellants claimed that the shops should be considered "homestead" under Section 2(j) of the Act, which would exempt them from vesting in the State. However, the Court held that the shops in question do not qualify as "homestead" as defined in the Act. The Court emphasized that "homestead" refers to dwelling houses used for residential purposes or let out on rent, which does not apply to commercial complexes like the Patna Market.

3. Constitutionality of the vesting of hats and bazars in the State under the Act:
The Court noted that the constitutionality of the Act's provisions had not been challenged before it. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Kameshwar Singh's case, which upheld the Act's validity under the framework of agrarian reform. The Court reiterated that the Act's primary purpose is to transfer the interests of proprietors and tenure holders to the State, including hats, bazars, and other sairati interests.

4. Distinction between rural and urban bazars under the Act:
The appellants argued that the Act intended to vest only rural bazars in the State, not commercial complexes in urban areas. The Court rejected this distinction, stating that the Act does not differentiate between rural and urban properties. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to transfer the entire estate, including both rural and urban bazars, to the State.

5. Validity of the Full Bench decision of the High Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench decision of the High Court, which held that the bazars in question vested in the State under the Act. The Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation that the complexes of shops are indeed bazars and not homesteads. The Court found no error in the High Court's judgment warranting interference.

6. Interpretation of Sections 3, 4(a), 5, 7A, and 7B of the Act:
The Court provided a detailed interpretation of these sections, concluding that:
- Section 3 empowers the State Government to declare the vesting of estates in the State.
- Section 4(a) specifies the consequences of such vesting, including the transfer of hats, bazars, and other sairati interests to the State.
- Section 5 allows intermediaries to retain homesteads as tenants, but this does not apply to commercial complexes.
- Sections 7A and 7B exclude hats, bazars, and melas from the interests that intermediaries can retain, ensuring they vest in the State.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the bazars in question vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Court held that the shops do not qualify as "homestead" and that the Act does not distinguish between rural and urban bazars. The Court found no constitutional issues with the vesting provisions of the Act and upheld the interpretation of the relevant sections. The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.