Ram Badan Rai and ors Vs Union of India

CASE BRIEF

Appellants- Ram Badan Rai And Ors

Respondents- Union of India And Ors.

STATUTES REFERRED-

• The Constitution of India.
• The Bihar And Uttar Pradesh (Alteration Of Boundaries) Act, 1968.
• The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Bihar And West Bengal (Transfer Of Territories) Act, 1956.

CASES REFERRED-

• State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962.

FACTS-

1. The case involves a piece of land between State of Bihar and State of Uttar Pradesh along with the banks of river Ganges. The piece of land is disputed and both the states regard it as part of their own territory.
2. The petition was filed by six persons who were the residents of Hansnagar, U.P. as it was at the time of 1881-83 survey. The appellants sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Record Officer, Ballia, UP from carrying on survey and record operations in regard to village Hansnagar, UP otherwise than on the basis that it was always a part of the State of UP and on the basis that it was not transferred territory under the Bihar and UP Alteration of Boundry Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the ‘1968 Act’).
3. They further required the survey and record operations to be carried out ignoring the directions contained in the Minutes of the meeting of officials dated 19.10.84 and letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985.
4. Alternatively; they sought a writ of certiorari quashing the said minutes dated 19.10.1984 and the directions of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985. on account of number of cases pending before the court, the Bench found it necessary to consider the matter before it in detail.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES-

1. The petitioners-appellants, contended in the writ petition that they and certain others were residents of village Hansnagar (now U.P.) as recorded in the survey of 1881-1883, that at the commencement of the Constitution of India on 26.1.1950, the boundaries of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States were frozen and all land lying to the west of the eastern stream (then the deep stream) formed part of Hansnagar of UP that, after 26.1.1950, despite the change in the course of the river Ganga, the said land continued in possession of the appellants and was entered in the records of UP for which the appellants continued to pay land revenue.
2. According to them, if one excluded the fictitious records and maps “created” by the officials of the State of Bihar there would be no question of transferring any land as contemplated by the 1968 Act from Bihar to U.P, State this land was in-U.P. from 26.1.1950. The petitioners-appellants also contended that the three villages-

(i) Nainijbr 1845,

(ii) Nainijor Nambrar and

(iii) Nainijor Diare Paschim which the Bihar Government with the Bihar respondents claimed as existing, were imaginary or ghost villages only recorded in the records prepared by the Bihar officials.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Respondents in its counter in the High Court stated that the record of rights proceedings in U.P. were part of judicial process and parties could question the same in appeals and that the maps prepared by the Survey of India department in regard to the transferred territories were relevant and were intended to facilitate the identification of the transferred territories, that, may be the three disputed villages did not figure in the Survey of India map of 1881-83 and so were not included in me Schedule to the 1968 Act but they were shown with reference to revenue records in force at the time of transfer as envisaged in section 3(4) of the 1968 Act.
2. The purpose of the meeting of 19.10.1984 was administrative in nature for resolving differences between the two States and there was no question of any notice to the petitioners. The names of the three villages have now been included in the map of the Survey of India in accordance with information given by the Bihar Government.
3. The State of Bihar, in its counter in the High Court, stated that the position which existed before 1881-83 was altered after 1881-83, and considerable portion of village Nainijor went over from Bihar to UP side in 1881-83, and that portion was indicated as part of Hansnagar of UP, that portion was incapable of cultivation since it consisted of sandy tracts. After 1881-83, the river started receding in the other direction and as a result land of village Nainijor was again thrown up on Bihar side of the river.
4. The State of Bihar reiterated that the river changed its course in 1961 and land reappeared on Nainijor side in Bihar. The UP Government, according to the State of Bihar, never exercised control over these lands in Nainijor from 1927 to 1944, Rather, the area was under the revenue control of the Bihar Government. The deep stream was the boundary.
5. The three villages stood transferred under the 1968 Act to the UP States. The meeting of 19.10.1984 was an administrative one and there was no question of giving notice to rival claimants.

QUESTION OF LAW-

Whether in view of Section 26 of the 1968 Act, the UP statutes could be straightway applied to territories transferred from Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act.

JUDGMENT-

1. The Supreme Court in its judgment had remitted the matter back to the High Court to find out the feasibility of representative actions being filed under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
2. It mentioned that if the High Court thinks it feasible to have the disputes decided under the 1950 Act, and at a higher level by the Commissioner or other officer, it will be open to the High Court to issue appropriate directions.
3. If the High Court thinks that such a procedure is not feasible it will be for the High Court to so decide and leave the parties to chose their further remedies after the conclusion of the cases under the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, the matter is remitted to the High Court on this limited aspect. The High Court will issue notice to the parties and decide this aspect as early as possible.