1980 INSC 0060
                                            Bhaiya Shankar Pratap Deo

                                                           Vs

                                           Tapeshwari Singh and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 2159 of 1969

                             (Syed M. Fazal Ali, P. S. Kailasam, A. D. Koshal JJ)

                                                      08.02.1980

                                                     JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. -

1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court
upholding the decree of the trial Court and dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

2. The detailed history of the case has been given in the judgment of the High Court and it is not
necessary to repeat the same in view of the only point of law that has been argued before us. Mr. U.
R. Lalit, counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950, as
the appellant was in khas possession of the land in question on the crucial date it did not vest in the
government. A perusal of Section 6 of the Act clearly shows that if the appellants were not in khas
possession of the land on the crucial date i.e. November 6, 1951, then their title to the property
would stand extinguished. The High Court has clearly pointed out that on this crucial date, the lands
remained attached by Magistrate under Section 146(1) of CrPC and no step were taken by the
appellant to get the land released. Ultimately, however the lands were released in favour of the
defendants and the income collected by the receiver were also allowed to be taken by the
defendants. It is therefore clear that even if the receiver was in possession of the lands in question
while the attachment under CrPC was in force, the attachment would in law be deemed to have been
on behalf of the defendant in whose favour the lands were released. Thus it is clear that on
November 6, 1951 the property being custodia legis the appellant was not in actual or constructive
possession of the land, hence his title stood extinguished. Secondly, even if we assume that
Khorposh grant land did not fall within the ambit of Section 6 of Bihar Land Reform Act of 1950,
there was a amendment under which these lands also stood vested in the state unless the Zamindar
was in possession of the land on January 26, 1955. Here also the evidence and the findings of fact
recorded by the courts below and upheld by the High Court are that the defendants were in
possession of that land on January 26, 1955. Thus the title of the appellant stood extinguished and
the High Court was therefore right in affirming the decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court.
We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances there
would be no order as to costs in this Court.

</html