PRABHUNATH VERMA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Jul 2009
- Bench
- RAVI RANJAN
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The concurrent finding of the original as well as appellate authority has been reversed by the revisional court without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, has confined himself to the short question…
Judgment
Sri R.K. Tiwari, Executive Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
Circle Officer, Sarai, Muzaffarpur.
Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.
Officer-in-Charge, Muzaffarpur (West). . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner For Respondent no.5 For the State : M/s Ajay Kumar Sinha, Abinash Kumar, Advocates, : M/s Y.P. Sinha, Arun Kumar, N. K. Sinha No.3, Advocates, : Mr. Kumari Amita SC(C) I (In C.W.J.C. No.3982 of 2002) For the Petitioner For the State (In C.W.J.C. No. 2721 of2002) ----------- : : S.K. Giri, AC to SC5 8/
29.07.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner files rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Let it be kept on record. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha appears on behalf of petitioner. It is - 2 - submitted that land in dispute is of an area of 43 decimals bearing revisional survey plot no. 19 appertaining to revisional survey khata no. 206 of village Bishunpur and out of that, 6 decimals were transferred by respondent no.6 in favour of petitioner by executing four sale deeds. Respondent no.5 filed four pre-emption cases, which were dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, West, Muzaffarpur in Ceiling Case no. 2/96-97, 3/96-97, 4/96-97, 5/96-97. The respondent no. 5 thereafter preferred appeal bearing Appeal Case no. 10/96-97, 11/96-97, 12/96-97 and 13/96-97. All the appeals were dismissed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur by order dated 13.04.1998. Thereafter the respondent no.5 preferred Revision before the Board of Revenue bearing Revision case no. 102/98, 103/98, 104/98 and 105/98. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision was heard ex parte and allowed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar by order dated 06.03.1999 as contained in Annexure-
The concurrent finding of the original as well as appellate authority has been reversed by the revisional court without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, has confined himself to the short question as to whether the revision could have been allowed reversing the concurrent findings of the original as well as appellate authorities without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He points out that though notice was issued by the revisional authority but the same could not be served upon the petitioner as would be evident from - 3 - the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherein it is admitted that notices, though issued, were not served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner files rejoinder to the counter affidavit and submits that it is borne out from the record that notices were issued under registered cover which were returned with endorsement that “the addressee is not known” and, thus, it is admitted that there is no valid service of notice upon the petitioner, who was the opposite party in all the four Ceiling revisions before the revisional court.
Learned counsel for respondent no.5 could not controvert this issue raised by the petitioner. Having heard the parties and perused the records of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this writ application can be disposed of on the aforesaid short question raised by the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law tested that by time that the principle of audi altrem partem has to be adhered to by the courts and authorities. It is clearly demonstrated from the records of the case that the notices were not validly served upon the petitioner, who is the opposite party in all the revision cases before the Board of revenue. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 is also not in a position to controvert this fact. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned order dated 06.03.1999 as contained in Annexure-3 cannot be sustained and, thus, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar to decide the Revision - 4 - Case nos.
Operative part
102/98, 103/98, 104/98 and 105/98 afresh after issuing notices to the parties and after hearing and considering the rival submissions. It is made clear that this court has not formed any opinion on merit of respective cases of the parties. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. So far as the C.W.J.C. No. 2721 of 2002 is concerned nobody had appeared on behalf of petitioner to press the same at the time of hearing. This application has been filed for a direction to the respondents to deliver possession of the lands in question. The lands in question measuring 6 decimals to revisional survey plot no. 19 appertaining to revisional survey khata no. 206 of village Bishunpur which were transferred by respondent no.6,were subject matter of pre- emption cases as aforesaid, which were dismissed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, West, Muzaffarpur in Ceiling Case no. 2/96- 97, 3/96-97, 4/96-97, 5/96-97. Thereafter, preferred appeals bearing Appeal Case nos. 10/96-97, 11/96-97, 12/96-97 and 13/96-97 were also dismissed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur by order dated
13.04.1998. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 preferred revision before the Board of Revenue bearing Revision case nso. 102/98, 103/98, 104/98 and 105/98, which were allowed. However, the revisional order as contained in Annexure-1 which was under challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 3982 of 2000 has already been set aside as aforesaid and in view of that since the order reversing the original as well as appellate authority order already - 5 - stands set aside, no order directing delivery of possession of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner on the of strength of revisional order aforesaid can be passed. In view of the aforesaid, this writ application stands dismissed. Uday/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 29 Jul 2009. The bench was RAVI RANJAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.