Md. Nasiruddin Biswas v. The State Of Bihar

The State Of Bihar The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Katihar. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Manihari, District - Katihar. The Block Development Officer, Amdabad, District - Katihar.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22148 of 2014 dt.03-04-2025

8. The Circle Officer. Amdabad, District - Katihar. The Prabhari Padadhikari, Bhu Bandobast Parimap, Purnea now Katihar. Chikku Singh @ Rohit Singh S/o Late Parduman Singh resident of village - Guagachhi, P.S. Manihari, District - Katihar, At present residing at village - Bullaghatti, P.S. - Amdabad, District - Katihar. Ramanand Gupta S/o Late Baldev Sah resident of village - Kantakosh, P.S. - Manihari, District - Katihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the State For the Resp. No. 8 Md. Ataur Rahman, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, AC to AAG-6 Mrs. Rekha Prasad, Advocate Ms. Anamika Priyadarshi, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate : : : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-04-2025 Heard Md. Ataur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Rekha Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent No.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.01.2014 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Misc. Case No. P.133/12-13 and also direct for production of order dated 14.05.1976 (as contained in Annexure 7) passed by the respondent no. 6 in case no. 1 of 1974 (Parduman Singh vs. Nasir and Others) and thereafter to quash it. Further prayed for direction to quash the order dated

21.08.86 (as contained in Annexure-8) passed by the District Judge, Katihar in Special Title Appeal No. 1 of 1976. Patna High Court CWJC No.22148 of 2014 dt.03-04-2025

3. Learned counsel for the private respondent has taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that it appears from the pleading that pursuant to the order dated 12.02.2014 passed in MJC No. 2058 of 2013, the petitioners have been given liberty to challenge the order dated 08.01.2014 and two other orders upon which the said order dated 08.01.2014 has been passed by the Collector. On going through the said Collector's order, it appears to have been passed in two previous orders dated

14.05.1976 passed by the Charge Officer and order dated

21.08.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Katihar wherein the said order dated 14.05.1976 was made impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondent further submits that since the matter enumerates from entry of the name of the petitioners during Revisional Survey, 1958 on subsequent proceeding before the Charge Officer and learned District Judge were guided by the Bihar Tenancy Act and the petitioners had already availed the remedy which was available under Section 109(A) (2) by the petitioners before the District Judge concerned. And now the remedy appears to have been available to the petitioners under Section 109(A) (3) of the B.T. Act before the Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the Patna High Court CWJC No.22148 of 2014 dt.03-04-2025 respondents has produced a provision as contained in Section 109(A) (3) which is quoted hereinbelow:- “109A. Appeals from decisions of Revenue- officers :- (1) The State Government shall appoint]1 one or more persons to be a Special Judge for the purpose of hearing appeals from the decisions of Revenue Officers under Sections 105 to 108 (both inclusive). (2) An appeal shall lie to the Special Judge from the decisions of a Revenue Officer under sections 105 to 108-A (both inclusive), and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882)]2 relating to appeals shall; as nearly as may be, apply to all such appeals. (3 ) Subject to the provisions of Chapter XLII]3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882) an appeal shall lie to High Court from the decision of Special Judge in any case under this Section (not being a decision settling a rent) as if he were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of the first section of that Chapter: Provided that, if in a second appeal the High Court alters the decision of the Special Judge in respect of any of the particulars with reference to which the rent of any tenure or holding has been settled the Court may settle a new rent for the tenure or holding but in so doing shall be guided by the rents of the other tenures or holdings of the same class comprised in the Patna High Court CWJC No.22148 of 2014 dt.03-04-2025 same record as acertained under Section 102 or settled under Section 105 or Section 108.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record and it appears from the provisions contained in Section 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885, the petitioners have remedy to file a second appeal and challenge the order dated 21.08.1986 passed by the District Judge who under Section 109 (A)(2) is empowered to hear the matter of the decision of the Revenue Officer under Section 105 to 108 and the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeal shall be nearly as may be applied of such appeals.

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners may file a second appeal before the High Court, if so advised.