Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12262 of 2008 With I A No. 6785 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Mahesh Singh Yadav College through the Secretary Shri Mahesh Singh Yadav, located at Katari, District Gaya 2. Sri Mahesh Singh Yadav, son of Late Ramchandra Yadav Both situated in and resident of Rampur Chiraiyan Tarh, PS Rampur, District Gaya ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Gaya 2. Collector (Gaya), District Gaya 3. Additional Collector (Gaya), District Gaya 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar (Gaya), District Gaya 5. Circle Officer, Town Circle, District Gaya 6. Circle Inspector, Town Circle, District Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad Mr. Md.Faiz Ahmad For Respondent nos. 1 to 6 : Mr. J S Barnwal, SC I Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to SC I ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 19-09-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 27.1.2008 (Annexure-4) passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 323 of 2006 by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, whereby and whereunder orders passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 18 of 2005-06 including the order dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure-2) by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Town Circle, Gaya, has been set aside, and further a direction has been issued for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the guilty revenue officials, who in connivance with the petitioners recommended and passed orders for fixation of rent in favour of the petitioners with respect to 12.20 acres of lands under dispute.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.12262 of 2008 (5) dt.19-09-2013 2
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed an application before the respondent Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Town Circle, Gaya, for fixation of rent under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (in short “1973 Act”), whereafter Rent Fixation Case No. 18 of 2005-06 was started. By an order dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure-2) the respondent Anchal Adhikari came to a conclusion that lands under dispute are Gair Majarua Malik lands, which were allegedly settled by the ex- landlord in favour of one Ram Chandra Gope and finally with his own recommendation he transmitted the records to the DCLR, Sadar, Gaya for passing final order. Subsequently, it appears that the records were returned by the respondent DCLR, Sadar, Gaya by his order dated 4.3.2006. Thereafter, the respondent Anchal Adhikari by his final order dated 10.3.2006, fixed the rent for the lands under dispute. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the respondent Anchal Adhikari had passed the order in favour of these petitioners for fixation of rent under the provisions of 1973 Act with respect to the lands under dispute, therefore, the subsequent order of the respondent DCLR, Sadar, Gaya, recommending cancellation of the said Jamabandi was not justified. It is next contended that on the basis of the said recommendation of the respondent DCLR, the respondent District Collector has passed the impugned order dated 27.1.2008 (Annexure-4) which is fit to be set aside by this Court. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No.1 appearing on behalf of the respondents has strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. He has submitted that the orders passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari in the aforesaid Rent Fixation Patna High Court CWJC No.12262 of 2008 (5) dt.19-09-2013 3 Case No. 18 of 2005-06 was contrary to the scheme and scope of 1973 Act and the whole action of the respondent Anchal Adhikari was in complete breach of the mandatory provisions of 1973 Act. He next contended that once a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for fixation of rent and thereby for mutation of lands in question in their favour, then the respondent Circle Officer could have decided the matter at his own level by hearing all the parties, but in no case he could have been guided by any instructions or direction issued by the higher authorities including the respondent DCLR. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari has vitiated in the eye of law and has rightly been set aside by the respondent District Collector. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the Anchal Adhikari has been vested with powers for passing an order for mutation with respect to any land claimed by a party under the provisions of Section 14 of 1973 Act. If someone is aggrieved by that order, an appeal can be preferred before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in terms of Section 15 of 1973 Act. Against the appellate order passed under Section 15, a revision would lie before the Collector of the District in terms of Section 16 of the 1973 Act. It is highlighted by the learned Standing Counsel that since the order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari in collusion with the petitioners besides some other revenue authorities was patently illegal and was passed on certain extraneous consideration, therefore, the respondent District Collector has not only set aside the aforesaid order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, but has also directed for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the guilty revenue officials. 5. This matter was heard earlier on few dates and by Patna High Court CWJC No.12262 of 2008 (5) dt.19-09-2013 4 oral orders passed by this Court, the matter was passed over. In the meantime, I A No.6785 of 2013 has been filed on 17.9.2013 on behalf of the petitioners seeking leave of this Court to assail the validity and correctness of order dated 12.7.2006 passed by respondent DCLR, Sadar, Gaya, in Rent Fixation Case No. 18 of 2005-06, whereby he recommended for cancellation of demand created in favour of the petitioners with respect to lands under dispute. The order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the respondent DCLR, Sadar, Gaya has been brought on record as Annexure-9 to the aforesaid interlocutory application. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and on consideration of the entire materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that this matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision right from very beginning. Apparently the order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari in favour of the petitioners was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of 1973 Act. The order dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure-2) is otherwise also very cryptic and non-speaking order, and on the basis of such a cryptic order he has allowed the claim of the petitioners with respect to a large area of 12.20 acres of lands, which cannot be sustained in the law. The respondent DCLR while passing the order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure-9) appears to have not followed the principles of natural justice. Earlier he had accepted the recommendations made by the respondent Circle Officer, and only after few months he had recommended for cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioners. The respondent District Collector, though had given opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but he has not gone into all the claims of the petitioners with respect to the lands under dispute. This Court Patna High Court CWJC No.12262 of 2008 (5) dt.19-09-2013 5 is fortified in its conclusion for setting aside all the three orders, referred to above, in view of the decision by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 8 of 1987/108 of 1985 passed by learned Sub Judge 2nd, Gaya, vide the judgment and decree dated 17.8.1993, whereby the claim of title of the plaintiffs of that suit was decreed only with respect to 50 decimals of land. Though the petitioners had also raised their claim of right and title with respect to lands claimed by them on the basis of a deed of gift, but that issue was left wide open to be decided in a separate proceeding. Claim of right, title and possession of the petitioners with respect to lands under dispute by the petitioners was not accepted by the Civil Court. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Civil Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to claim their right, title and possession over the lands in question, which are yet to be decided in a separate civil suit. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 27.1.2008 (Anexure-4) passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 323 of 2006 by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, so far it relates to the petitioners, order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent DCLR, Sadar, Gaya as also all the orders passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Town Circle, Gaya, in Rent Fixation Case No. 18 of 2005-06 including the order dated 10.3.2006, as per Annexure-2 series, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Circle Officer, Town Circle, Gaya with a direction to decide the claim of the petitioners afresh by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8. It is clarified that despite the present order of remand, the order dated 27.1.2008 (Annexure-4) passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.12262 of 2008 (5) dt.19-09-2013 6 respondent District Collector, Gaya, directing for initiation of departmental proceedings against the guilty revenue officials shall remain unaffected, and the departmental proceeding against the guilty officials shall be taken to its logical conclusion for the misconduct committed by them, and for that purpose the order dated 27.1.2008 (Annexure-4) shall not be treated to have been quashed or set aside by this Court.
Decision
9. The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above. I.A.No. 6785 of 2013 is also, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) mrl.