# Tire Regiortal Provident Fund Comm;ssion~r, Bombay v. Sh~ee Krishna M~tal M anufocturing Co., llnondora

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 831
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. WANOHoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tire-regiortal-provident-fund-comm-ssion-r-bombay-v-sh-ee-krishna-m-tal-m-2500
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

P.undamental right -
Right to hold property_ Ad. d'
t'
t t"tl
d'
~u zca·
b
i~n a8 O ,' .de .Pe~ z~y -Question of infringement, if could ariBe
e,ore sue,, a ~udzcatiun -
Constitu,tion of India Arts.19(1) (f)
31(1) -
Bihar Lanrl Reforms Act 1950 (Bihar 1 of 1950)'
•. 4(h).
.
'
h
The property regarding which the contention is raised
t at
the fundamental
rights of the·
petitioners
under
Arts. 19(1) (f) and 3] (I) of tl1e Constitution "'" "-lleged to
1962
Tire Regiortal
Provident Fund
Comm;ssion~r,
Bombay
v.
Sh~ee Krishna M~tal
M anufocturing Co.,
llnondora
Gajendragadkat J.
1962
Morch 14,
19Gt
Bsl.:aro a11d Ram:Jur
Lid
v.
The State of Bihar
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1962] SUPP.
have heen infrin!(ed is a plot of land within the Municipal
I imits of I-lazaribagh with certain
buildin~s and structures
thereon,,vhic!t originally belonged to the Raja of Ramgarh.
On January 16, I ~l41l, the Raja leased this property to I': for a
ter1n of 99 years and son1eti1ne thereafter settled his reversion·
ary interest of the property for the benefit of a Trust.
The estate of Ramgarh was notified under s. 3( 1) of
the Bihar Land Reforms /\ct for being taken over by the
Govcrn1ncnt of Bihar and in consequence, the estate statutorily vested in th~ State of Bihar.
A notice was issued to N
to shov.· cause \Vhy the lease executed in his favou1; should not
be set aside under s.4(h) of the act as the lease was executed
well within the period sperified under s. 4(h). N submitted
objections standing that these properties \Vere not covered by
s. 4(h).
During the pendcncy of the enquiry, I': surrendered
his leasehold to the trust. The Trust !cased the property to
one B \vho assigned his leasehold interest in the property to
the petitioner company. l,he present petition sought to quas
the said proceedings under s. 4(h) pending before the Collector wherein an enquiry was having held as to the manner
in which the property in question was being enjoyed by the
Raja of Rarngarh prior to the transfer by lease for 99 years.
The question is whether any fundamental rights of the petitio·
ncr have been infringed by the enquiry being held.
Held, that hcfore a party could complain of an i11fringcment of his fundamental rights to hold property he must
estahlish that he has title to that property and if that title
itself is in dispute and is the· subject of adjudication
~n
proceedings legally constituted, .he
ca~not obviously put
for,vard any claim based on ~ur.h utle until as a resull of that
enquiry his title established. It is only thereafter that the
question whether his rights in or to that property have been
improperly or illegally infrinl(ed could arise.
CrVJL APPELLATE Ju111su1C'l'IO!-i: Writ Petition
N0. 19 of 1961.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
A. V. Viiiwanatlta Sustri and D. N. M·ukhe1jGe,
for the petitioners.
Bajrang Sakai and S. P. Varma, for the respondents.
II
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
833
1962.
March 14. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYYANG.IB, J.-We consider that this petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution is entirely devoid
of merits and deserves to be dismissed as misconceived as it does not involve any question of the
infringement of any fundamental right.
The petition is substantially for the issue of a
writ of prohibition directing the Collector ofHazaribagh not to proceed with an enquiry pending before him under s. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms
Aot and a writ of certiorari to quash the said
proceedings. The property regarding which a contention is raised that the fundamantal rights of . the
petitioner under Arts.19(l)(f) and 31(1) of the
constitution are alleged to have been infringed, is a
plot of land within the municipal limits of Hazari-
. bagh in Bihar together with certain buildings and
structures thereon. The property originally belonged to the Ramgarh Raj. There is a dispute as to
the manner in which this property was being <mjoyed by the then proprietors and

## Text

3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
r
831
Besides; the containers are produced only for the
; use of the Mills.
They are not intended to be
sold in the market at all. Price for the containers is
not also charged from the customers. Indeed,
containers are required even for the purpose of
storage of the vegetable oil. It is thus clear that
the fabrication of tin containers has been under·
taken by the Mills only as a feeder activity ; it is
integrally connected with its main business of pro·
ducing and marketing vegetable oil and as such,
it is 't minor. part of the said activity. Having
regard to the relevant facts admitted or proved
in the present case, we are satisfied that the High
Court. was right in coming to the conclusion that
the Mills was not a factory within the meaning of
section 1(3)(a). The result is, the appeal .'lo. 387
of 1959 fails and is dismissed with costs.
C.A. 361 of 1959 allowed.
C.A: 387 of 1959 dismissed.
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD.
v.
THE STATE 01<' BIHAR AND ANOTHER
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N.
WANOHoo, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, and
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
P.undamental right -
Right to hold property_ Ad. d'
t'
t t"tl
d'
~u zca·
b
i~n a8 O ,' .de .Pe~ z~y -Question of infringement, if could ariBe
e,ore sue,, a ~udzcatiun -
Constitu,tion of India Arts.19(1) (f)
31(1) -
Bihar Lanrl Reforms Act 1950 (Bihar 1 of 1950)'
•. 4(h).
.
'
h
The property regarding which the contention is raised
t at
the fundamental
rights of the·
petitioners
under
Arts. 19(1) (f) and 3] (I) of tl1e Constitution "'" "-lleged to
1962
Tire Regiortal
Provident Fund
Comm;ssion~r,
Bombay
v.
Sh~ee Krishna M~tal
M anufocturing Co.,
llnondora
Gajendragadkat J.
1962
Morch 14,
19Gt
Bsl.:aro a11d Ram:Jur
Lid
v.
The State of Bihar
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1962] SUPP.
have heen infrin!(ed is a plot of land within the Municipal
I imits of I-lazaribagh with certain
buildin~s and structures
thereon,,vhic!t originally belonged to the Raja of Ramgarh.
On January 16, I ~l41l, the Raja leased this property to I': for a
ter1n of 99 years and son1eti1ne thereafter settled his reversion·
ary interest of the property for the benefit of a Trust.
The estate of Ramgarh was notified under s. 3( 1) of
the Bihar Land Reforms /\ct for being taken over by the
Govcrn1ncnt of Bihar and in consequence, the estate statutorily vested in th~ State of Bihar.
A notice was issued to N
to shov.· cause \Vhy the lease executed in his favou1; should not
be set aside under s.4(h) of the act as the lease was executed
well within the period sperified under s. 4(h). N submitted
objections standing that these properties \Vere not covered by
s. 4(h).
During the pendcncy of the enquiry, I': surrendered
his leasehold to the trust. The Trust !cased the property to
one B \vho assigned his leasehold interest in the property to
the petitioner company. l,he present petition sought to quas
the said proceedings under s. 4(h) pending before the Collector wherein an enquiry was having held as to the manner
in which the property in question was being enjoyed by the
Raja of Rarngarh prior to the transfer by lease for 99 years.
The question is whether any fundamental rights of the petitio·
ncr have been infringed by the enquiry being held.
Held, that hcfore a party could complain of an i11fringcment of his fundamental rights to hold property he must
estahlish that he has title to that property and if that title
itself is in dispute and is the· subject of adjudication
~n
proceedings legally constituted, .he
ca~not obviously put
for,vard any claim based on ~ur.h utle until as a resull of that
enquiry his title established. It is only thereafter that the
question whether his rights in or to that property have been
improperly or illegally infrinl(ed could arise.
CrVJL APPELLATE Ju111su1C'l'IO!-i: Writ Petition
N0. 19 of 1961.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
A. V. Viiiwanatlta Sustri and D. N. M·ukhe1jGe,
for the petitioners.
Bajrang Sakai and S. P. Varma, for the respondents.
II
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
833
1962.
March 14. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYYANG.IB, J.-We consider that this petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution is entirely devoid
of merits and deserves to be dismissed as misconceived as it does not involve any question of the
infringement of any fundamental right.
The petition is substantially for the issue of a
writ of prohibition directing the Collector ofHazaribagh not to proceed with an enquiry pending before him under s. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms
Aot and a writ of certiorari to quash the said
proceedings. The property regarding which a contention is raised that the fundamantal rights of . the
petitioner under Arts.19(l)(f) and 31(1) of the
constitution are alleged to have been infringed, is a
plot of land within the municipal limits of Hazari-
. bagh in Bihar together with certain buildings and
structures thereon. The property originally belonged to the Ramgarh Raj. There is a dispute as to
the manner in which this property was being <mjoyed by the then proprietors and so we shall at this
stage refrain from saying anything about it. On
January 16, 194& the Raja of Ramgarh granted a
lease of this property in favour of his younger
brother Basant Narain-for a term of 99 years. On
April 7, 1949 the Raja settled his reversionary
interest in the property for the benefit of a Trust
under a registered deed of settlement. The estate of
Ramgarh was notified under s. 3(1) of the Bihar
La.nd Reforms Act (Bihar 1 of 1950) for being taken
over by the Government of Bihar and in consequence
the estate statutorily vested in the State on and
from November 3, 1951. Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act enacts:
"The collector shall have power to make
inquiries in respect of any transfer including
the settlement or lease of any land comprised
~ such estate or the transfer of any kind of
1962
Bokoro and Ramgur
Ltd.
v.
The Stalt of Bihor
AJJO"gar J,
1962
Boka10 and R"'11lur
ltd.
v.
Tht State of Bii.ar
Ayya11gar J,
834 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
interest in any building used primarily as
office or kutdwry for tbc collection of rent of
such estate or tenure or part thereof, made at
any time after t,ho first day of January 1!!46
and if he is satisfied that such transfer was
made with thP. object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causi1ig 1088 t.o the ~tate or
obtaining
higher compensation thereunder
the Collector may, after giving reasonable
notice to the parties concerned to appear and
be heard and with the previous sanction of
the State Government, annul such transfer,
\
dispossess the person claiming under it and
take possession of such property on such terms
as may appear to the Collector tu be fair and
equitable."
It will ho noticed that the lease in favour of the
H.aja's younger brother was dated January 16, 1948
and therefore was well within the period specified
in the provision. It was the contention of the
State that the buildings on the property which were
tho subject of the lease <lated January 16, 1948
were being used by the Haj primarily as an office
or kutcheri for the collect' on of rent-a fact which
however was disputed .,,_(: ia a sul'ject of contest
in tho proceedings now sought to ~e quashed.
On
Kovember 27, 1955 a notice was issued to Basant
Narain to show cause why the lease cxecutt,>d in his
favour on January 16, 11!48 should not be set aside
under the power conforred upon the CollPctor by
~. 4(h). Basant Narain submitted his objections and
stated that the leased properti!'s were not covered
by s. 4(b).
Before however this enquiry was
completed, llasant !\arain surrendered his leasehold
interest to the assignee of the reversion, viz., the
Trust, by a rcgibterc<l deed" dated January I, l!J57.
Subsequently on June ,I, 1959 the Trust which
thus became entitled to the entire interest. in the
property in its turn leased the property to one
B~nsidhar and about a m1 nth later, on July 3, 1959
3 S.d.R.
s:i5
Bansidhar assigned his leasehold interest i11 the
property to the petitioner-company and that is
how the petitioner came upon the scene.
On November 13, 1959 the Collector pessed an
order cancelling the lease. The petitioner who laid
claim to a title to the property under the assignment in its favour dated. July 3, 1959, applied to
the Collector to set aside his order both on the merits
and also on the ground that the order of November 13, 1959 had been passed to its prejudice without giving it an opportunity to make its objections
even though by that date it had obtained title to the
property and therefore a locus standi to be heard. We
are not now concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the contention raised by the petitioner,
because the State of Bihar set asidA the order of
the Collector and directed a re-enquiry and in this
re-enquiry the petitioner filed a petition before the
Collector on August 9, 1960 setting out its case.
It was during the progress of this last enquiry
that the petitioner moved this Con.rt by the present
petition for the reliefs which we have already set
out. Pausing here it is necessary to add that the
constitutional validity of s. 4(h) is not challenged
and the case therefore turns on whether the property satisfies the conditions on which the section is
attracted. The relief sought in this petition is based
on two allegations: (I) that the land on which the
buildings stand is raiyati land and therefore could
not be taken possession of by the State under the
Bihar Land Reforms Act and (2) that the buildings
standing thereon were previously used for the'residential purpose of the Raja and his family and not as a
kutoheri. The enquiry has been proceeding before
the Collector in regard to these two points and it
may be mentioned that when the petitioner applied
to this Court for a stay of proceedings before the
Collector .. this Court passed an order permitting the
enquiry to continue, though it stayed the passing of
196Z
Bokaro and Ramgw
Ltd.
v.
r/H t late of Bihar
I9G2
Bo/;oro • nd Ramyw
Lid. ..
The Stal t rif Bilwr
Ay.1angar J,
. . .
.
.
.
.
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTI'S [1962) SUPP.
any order by the State Governm•mt. It will thus
be seen that if the contention of the State is correct
a11 regards th" tenure of the property am! as regards
the purpo;e for which thp buildings were used, the
1 title of the State to the.property wonld be made out
and the petitioner could have no legitimate grievance. If, on the other hand, the petitioner cstab.
lishcs in the enquiry the case that it has put forward
in the petition it is bound to succeed. Thus the question whether petition has a.ny right to the property
which it claims depends wholly on questions of fact
which are plainly within the jurisdiction of the
authorities constituted
under
the Bihar Land
Reforms Act. Before a party can complain of an infringement of his fundiimental right to hold property
he must establish that he bas title to that property
and if his title itself is in dispute and is the subject
of adjudication in proceedings legally constituted,
he cannot obviously put forward any claim bi.sect
on hi8 title until as a result of that enquiry he is
able tu establish his t.itlc. It is only thereafter that
the que8tion whether his rightH in or to that property have been improperly or ilkgally infringed
could arise.
In the circumstances we consider that the
petitioner can complain of no infringement of its
fundamental right, a8 to justify a. pd·ition undor
Art. 32.
The petition is dismissed with costs.
Petition dismissed.
\ ·-·
I