Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.2802 of 2007 (5) dt.04-07-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2802 of 2007 ====================================================== Ramesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Mahabir Singh, resident of village- Simaria, P.S.-Falka, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Katihar, Collectorate, Mirchaibari, Katihar. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar, Sub-Divisional Office, At and P.O.-Mirchaibari, District-Katihar. 3. The Circle Officer, Korha, At & P.O. & Korha, District-Katihar. 4. Sri Balram Mandal, son of Raghunath Mandal, Resident of village & P.O.-Sisiya, P.S.-Korha, District-Katihar.
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K.Jaipuriyar, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. 5 For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 04-07-2013 Heard the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 28.2.2002 and 20.11.2002 (Annexure-2) passed in Case No. 3 of 2000-01 by the respondent- Anchal Adhikari, Korha, District-Katihar, as also the appellate order dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure-1) passed in Case No. 4 of 2006 by the respondent-S.D.O., Katihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner submits that the claim of respondent No. 4 with respect to the plots of land bearing Khata No. 169 appertaining to plot No. 1930, area one acre 8 decimals and plot No. 1939, area 49 decimals, total area Patna High Court CWJC No.2802 of 2007 (5) dt.04-07-2013 2 being 1 acre 57 decimals situate at Mouza-Sisiya, District -Katihar (referred to as the lands in dispute) has been arbitrarily allowed in terms of Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short B.T. Act). It is further submitted that the impugned original order dated 28.2.2002 (Annexure-2) is violative of the principles of natural justice, as before passing the impugned final order opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. It is next contended that there is nothing to show on the record that respondent No. 4 has raised his claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act in the prescribed Form-C before the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Korha disclosing all the facts and giving full details regarding the lands in dispute as also the land-holder. Therefore, according to him, the entire proceeding has vitiated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that notices were issued to the petitioner, yet he did not file any objection. Therefore, the matter proceeded and impugned final order was passed. He further contends that father of respondent No. 4 was earlier declared under raiyat over the lands in dispute in a proceeding under Section 48E of the B.T. Act. Therefore, his claim has rightly been allowed. However, on a query made by this Court, he has fairly conceded that there is nothing to show on the record that the application of respondent No. 4 was filed in prescribed form-‘C’. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision. This Court has considered the scheme and scope of Sections 48C and 48D of the B.T. Act in great details in C.W.J.C. Patna High Court CWJC No.2802 of 2007 (5) dt.04-07-2013 3 No. 1762 of 2007, which has been disposed of today itself. This Court has come to a conclusion that before deciding the claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act all the procedures prescribed therein are required to be strictly followed, since the provision under Section 48D of the B.T. Act is benevolent in nature for the occupancy under raiyat, but it is very harsh and detrimental in nature, so far the landholder/raiyat is concerned. Once claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act is allowed, then right of the original land-holder/raiyat extinguishes in the land for all purposes. Coming to the present case, this Court finds that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before passing the impugned final order and further there is nothing to show that respondent No. 4 had filed his application in prescribed Form-C. Therefore, the impugned order under Section 48D of the B. T. Act passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari as also the appellate order passed by the respondent S.D.O., Katihar cannot be sustained. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned original order dated 28.2.2002 and 20.11.2002 (Annexure-2) passed in Case No. 3 of 2000-01 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Korha and the impugned appellate order dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent S.D.O., Katihar in Appeal No. 4 of 2006 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Korha for a fresh decision of the claim of respondent No. 4 in accordance with law. It would be open to respondent No. 4 to file a fresh application in the prescribed Form-C with respect to the lands in dispute before the respondent Anchal Adhikari. The application in the prescribed Patna High Court CWJC No.2802 of 2007 (5) dt.04-07-2013 4 Form-C shall be filed by the respondent No. 4 disclosing all the relevant facts regarding lands in dispute and the landholder/raiyat. In order to expedite the matter the petitioner as also respondent No. 4 are hereby directed to appear before the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Korha within a period of two months from today with a certified copy of the present order, whereafter respondent Anchal Adhikari, Kohra shall fix a firm date and shall proceed in the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law. He shall make all endeavours to conclude the proceeding afresh within a maximum period of six months from the first date of appearance of the parties, as directed above. In the result, the writ petition succeeds to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) sudip/-