Holding

Baletha Math is part of Dhanauti Math; its land must be included in the ceiling computation, and the reopening of proceedings is valid and cannot be challenged.

Summary

The appellant, Baletha Math, possessed 15.36 acres of land and was subject to ceiling proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act, 1961. An order dated 15‑04‑1976 held the Math to be a separate entity, but after the amendment introducing Section 32‑A (effective 06‑04‑1981) all pending proceedings were abated and fresh suo motu proceedings were initiated, concluding that Baletha Math was a subsidiary of Dhanauti Math and its land must be counted with Dhanauti Math’s holdings. The appellant challenged the validity of reopening the case and argued that it was not a "family" within Section 2(ee) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the explanation to Section 2(ee) expands "person" to include trusts and institutions, making Baletha Math part of Dhanauti Math, and that the reopening of proceedings could not be contested because it was not raised in the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the reopening of ceiling proceedings after the amendment introducing Section 32‑A is legally permissible despite a prior final order.
Whether Baletha Math qualifies as a "family" under Section 2(ee) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, thereby requiring its land to be aggregated with Dhanauti Math for ceiling calculation.

Legislation cited

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act, 1961s. 10(1), s. 2(ee), s. 32-A

Subjects

land ceilingland reformsfamily definitionsubsidiarySection 32-Areopening of proceedingsBihartrustMath

Judgment

).· (
l

\

A SANT SARAN GOSWAMI @ DEOJI
v
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JANUARY 17, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

Bihar Land Refonns (Fixation of Land Ceiling & Acquisition) Act, ~
1961-Ss.2(ee) & 32-A-Sevefal Maths under the management of one
Math-Whether to be treated as subsidiary or family of Maths-Not entitled
C to treat its land independent from lands of controlling Mat~eopening of
ceiling proceedings-Not challenged and became final and cannot be allowed
to be raised.

Appellant constituting Baletha Math was in possession of 15.36
acres of land Proceedings were initiated against appellant under the Bihar
D Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act. 1961. The
Deputy Collector by an order dated 15.04.76 held that the appellant was a
separate Math and that the lands held by the appellant could not be
included in the lands of the Dhanauti Math, Dhanauti Math filed an
appeal and further revision to the Board of Revenue.
E During the pendency of the revision, Section 32-A was brought by
• amendment w.e.f. 06.04.81 and all pending proceedings abated pursuant
thereto. The Deputy Collector initiated suo motu proceedings on 12.08.81
against the appellant and held that Dhanauti Math had several Maths
under its management including the appellant's Math. The ceiling area
F was determined holding that the land was held by Dhanauti Math. The
order of the Dy. Collector was upheld by the appellate court, revisional
court and the High Court.

In appeal to this court it was contended that the reopening of the
proceedings was bad in law as the order of the Dy. Collector dated 15.04.76
G had become final and no proceedings were pending consequent to the
abatement by virtue of Section 32-A. It W"s also contended that the
appellant Math was only subsidiary to Dhanauti Math and could i].Ot be
treated as a 'family' of Dhanauti Math as defined in Section 2(ee) of the
1961 Act and, therefore, the land held by the appellant Math could not be
H included in the land of Dhanauti Math for the purposes of determining
344
,
I

S.S. GOSWAMI v. STATE OF BIHAR 345

the ceiling. A

lo.;
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Explanation (1) to Section 2(ee) of the Act made it clear
tt~at the word "person" includes any company, institution, trust, associa-
tion or body or individuals, whether incorporated or not. The appellant B
Math was a part of the Dhanauti Math and, therefore, could not be treated
as an independent person. The land belonging to the appellant must be
included with the land of the Dhanauti Math. [347-A, F]

2. The reopening of the proceedings was not challenged in the High
Court and as such the same could not be raised. Moreover, in computation c
proceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of
proceedings. [346-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1216 of
1992.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.84 of the Patna High Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 1241 of 1984.

A. Sharan for the Appellant.

Pramod Swamp, Ms. Niranjana Singh for S.P. Singh for the Respon- E
dents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appellant is in possession of 15.36 acres of land of village Baletha
under Siwan Prakhand, State of Bihar, Dhanauti Math of Kabir Panth was F
notified under S.10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land
Ceiling and Acquisition) Act 1961, (for short, the Act). When the proceed-
ings were initiated, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by his proceedings
dated 15.4.1976 held that the appellant is a separate Math and that there-
fore, the land held by the appellant could not be included in the lands of
G
Dhanauti Math. The Dhanauti Math carried the m,atter in appeal in respect
of other lands and also in further revision to the Board of Revenue. While
..J
" the revision was pending, by Amendment Act Section 32-A was brought
on statute w.e.f. 6.4.1981. The effect of the amendment is that all pending
proceedings stood abated. Thereafter power has been given to start suo
motu ceiling proceedings afresh. In exercise of the power, the Dy. Collec- H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

_.A tor, Land Reforms initiated the proceedings on 12.8.81. In those proceed-
- T{gs it was held that Dhanauti Math is having sever~l maths under its
management like Bharatheri Math Maujahidpur Math etc. including the
appellant Math and therefore, all the lands are held by Dhanauti Math.
Accordingly ceiling on the holding was determined. On appeal, it was
confirmed and on further revision, the Board of Revenue by order .dated
B 19.1.84 confirmed the same. Wtien the appellant filed the C.W.J.C. No.
1241/84 in the .High Court challenging the correctness of the findings
recorded by the authorities, by order dated 10.7.84 the High Court dis-
missed the same in limine. Thus this appeal, by special leave.

It is firstly contended that reopening of proceedings is bad in law.
C The main reason on which the contention raised is that the Dy. Collector
had declared by his proceedings dt. 15.4.76 that the appellant was a
separate entity and that independently held the land. It was allowed to
become final. Therefore, there was no proceedings pending in consequence
of which the abatement had not taken place by operation of Sec.32-A.
D Unfortunately, we cannot give acceptance to the contention for the reason
that reopened proceedings were allowed to become final as they were not
challenged by filing any writ petition in the High Court. In computation
proceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of
proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise this conten-
tion.
E
It is next contended that the appellant is only a subsidiary to
Dhanauti Math and it is not a family as defined under Sec. 2(ee) of the
Act and that therefore, the lands held by the appellant cannot be included
in the land by Dhanauti Math. This contention too has no force.

F Section 2(ee) reads thus :

"2( ee) "Family" means and includes a person, his or her spouse
and minor children.

Explanation 1.. ....... In this clause the word "person" includes any
G company, institution, trust, association, or body of individuals
whether incorporated or not.

Explanation 11 ............... The person law shall not be relevant or be
taken into consideration in determining the composition of the
H family for the purposes of the Act."
S.S. GOSWAMI v. STATE OFBIHAR 347

Though ~he mai1,1 part of 'family' has been widely defiued to mean A
and include enumerated entities, explanation-I makes the matter amply
clear that the word 'person' includes any company, institution, trust, as-
sociation or any body of individuals whether incorporated or not. The
revisional authority concluded after considering the evidence thus :

"On a perusal of the order of the learned D.C.L.R. Siwan dated B
15.4.1976 (Annexure V to the petition for re'vision) shows that
Mahanth Muneshwar Goswami of Dhanauti Math had stated that
there were several subsidiary Math under the Dhanauti Math such
as Bharatheri Math, Baletha Math, Maujahidpur Math etc. In
addition to this it is also admitted that the Mahanth of Baletha c
Math was impleaded on a party in the Title Suit relating to
Dhanauti Math. Both these facts clearly indicate that Baletha Math
is a part of Dhanauti Math. If this was not so the petitioner could
have easily produced the registration papers of Dhanauti~ath to
indicate that Baletha Math was not part of the same. He should
have also produced a certificate from the Bihar State Religious D
..J Trust Board to confirm that Baletha Math and Dhanauti Math
were separate identities and has, nothing to do with one another.
Though ample time was available to the petitioner - landholder,
he did not do so."
E
In View of the finding that Baletha Math is part of Dhanauti Math,
admittedly it is a trust. Therefore it cannot be treated to be a subsidiary as
contended for in the light to the finding by the final re'visional authority.

It is next contended that the above finding is not based on e'vidence
and the reasoning is perverse and therefore it is open to this Court to go F
into the question and decide the matter afresh. We are afraid we cannot
accede to this contention. It is seen that the re'visional authority and all the
authorities on appreciation of e'vidence concurrently came to the con-
clusion that the appellant's Math is a part of Dhanauti Math. It being a
finding of fact on consideration of material placed before the authorities, G
it is not open to this Court to appreciate the finding and to come to a
different conclusion.

-
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

A.G. Appeal dismissed.