1979 INSC 0445
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                           Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh

                                                           Vs.

                                                    State of Bihar

                                             C.A.No.2309 (N) of 1969

                                     (N. L. Untwalia and A. D. Koshal, JJ.)

                                                      11.10.1979

                                                   JUDGEMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:-

1. This appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court given in a writ petition is
filed by the appellants. The short question which fell to be decided in the High Court and deserves
our consideration is whether the reserve Jama fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per year by the Collector under
the Bihar Land Reform Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), was valid and legal. The
Jama had to be fixed in accordance with R. 7 (u) of the Rules.The question is whether it was under
clause (i) or under clause (ii) that it was to be so fixed. The High Court has not clearly kept in view
the distinction between the two clauses, Rule 7 (u) reads as follows :-

"R. 7 (u). Fixation of reserve Jama - (i) In respect of such Hat, Bazar or Mela a reserve Jama, shall
be fixed by the Collector or the prescribed authority on the basis of the average of the Jama, at
which such Hat, Bazar or Mela was settled during the preceding three years. In case of
improvements and developments in respect of the premises of such Hat, Bazar or Mela or in the
neighbourhood thereof, for which the outgoing intermediaries and/or their heirs are not responsible
and which are likely to increase the potentialities for fielding a higher Jama, such potentialities may
also be taken into consideration and the reserve Jama can be suitably increased with the permission
of the Commissioner.

(ii) In case of difficulty in fixing the reserve Jama on the basis of the average of the Jamas of the
preceding three years, due to non-availability of figures or otherwise, the Collector or the prescribed
authority shall fix the reserve Jama in his best judgment with the approval of the Commissioner of
the division."

2. Under the first part of clause (i) the reserve Jama has to be fixed by the Collector or the
prescribed authority on the basis of the average of the Jama at which any hat, Bazar or Mela was
settled during the preceding three years. The second part takes into account the improvement if any,
brought about therein for which the intermediary is not responsible.

3. Under clause (ii) however, in case of difficulty in fixing the reserve Jama on the basis of the
average of the Jamas of the preceding three years the Collector can fix the reserve Jama in his best
judgment. The fixation under clause (ii) is subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the
Division.

4. In the instant case it appears to us that the figures of the reserve Jamas for the preceding three
were not available. The Collector, therefore, proceeded to fix it under clause (ii) of Rule 7 (u) of the
Rules. It was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per year and that was approved by the Commissioner also. There
was no illegality in fixing the reserve Jama according to the best judgment of the Collector. The
Division Bench of the High Court, there is correct.

5. But the view expressed by the High Court in the judgment under appeal with reference to the
provisions of Rule 7 (u) is not quite correct. The High Court has committed a mistake in observing
:-

"Without entering into details about the provisions of the rules, it is sufficient to say that the
Collector should first fix the reserved Jama either on the basis of the average Jama at which the Hat
was settled during the preceding three years or to the best of his judgment subject to the approval of
the Commissioner of the Division (see clauses (i) and (ii) of R. 7 (u)) and then make an offer to the
previous intermediary (Rule 7R))."
6. The view so expressed is erroneous and we do not approve of it. The correct position of law is as
we have explained above. But on the facts the decision of the High Court as it is, is correct and
cannot be interfered with.

7. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal but without costs.
         Appeal dismissed.