Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15999 of 2004 ====================================================== 1. Masomat Dropadi Devi widow of Late Chandra Kishore Jha 2. Madan Mohan Jha 3. Govind Jha 4. Bambhol Jha All sons of Late Chandra Kishore Jha 5. Bipendra Jha son of Late Tarni Jha All residents of Vilalge Fulwariya, Police Station Korha, District Katihar 6. Sushila Devi daughter of Late Chandra Kishore Jha, wife of Srhi Jotendra Jha, resident of Manihari, PS Manihari, District Katihar 7. Anila Devi daughter of Late Chandra Kishore Jha, wife of Late Dev Narayan Jha, resident of Village Satghara, PS Jokihar, District Araria 8. Manjula Devi daughter of Late Chandra Kishore Jha, wife of Late Rajendra Jha, resident of Village Bhawanipur, PS Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur 9. Meera Devi daughter of Late Chandra Kishore Jha, wife of Sri Vyash Jha, resident of Village Siyakhor, PS Sariyahat, District Dumka Versus .... .... Petitioners 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar 3. Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Katihar 4. Narain Singh son of Late Bhuttu Mahto, resident of Village Fulwariya, PO Maruwa, Police Station Korha, District Katihar
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Madhav Roy Mrs. Kanti Jha and Mr. Rabindra Nath Tiwary For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, GP 2 For Respondent no. 4 : Mr. Sanjeev Kr.Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 12 09-09-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure 4) passed Patna High Court CWJC No.15999 of 2004 (12) dt.09-09-2013 2 in Case No. 2 of 1992-93 by the respondent DCLR, Katihar, whereby he has allowed the batai claim of respondent no.4 under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short, B.T.Act). The petitioners are further aggrieved by the appellate order dated 13.9.2004 (Annexure 5) passed in Revenue Appeal No. 517 of 1994-95 by respondent District Collector, Katihar, whereby and whereunder aforesaid appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners against the original order has been dismissed and original order passed by the respondent DCLR, Katihar has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 4 filed a petition under Section 48E of the B.T. Act before the respondent DCLR, Katihar with respect to a plot of land bearing Khata No. 29, appertaining to Khesra No. 1762 having an area of 82 decimals, which gave rise to Bataidari Case No. 2 of 1992-93. In the aforesaid batai case, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 48E of the B.T. Act and the rules made thereunder, claim of respondent no. 4 was allowed by an order dated 14.5.1993. It is contended that the predecessor of the petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred Batai Appeal No. 369 of 1993-94 before the respondent District Collector, Katihar, who in exercise of his powers under Section 48F of the B.T. Act allowed the aforesaid batai appeal filed on Patna High Court CWJC No.15999 of 2004 (12) dt.09-09-2013 3 behalf of one Chandra Kishore Jha, predecessor of the present petitioners and by order dated 17.1.1994 (Annexure 3) the matter was remitted back to the respondent DCLR, Katihar for passing fresh order in accordance with law. It is next contended that on remand, the respondent DCLR once again committed same mistake and mechanically allowed the claim of respondent no. 4 by the impugned order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure-4). The appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners failed. Hence the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has tried to support the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the B.T. Act. However, he has not been able to show that the procedure prescribed under Section 48E of the B.T. Act was complied with by the respondent DCLR before passing his final orders dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure-4). 5. Learned Govt. Pleader No. 2 appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has fairly submitted that the entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that before passing the final order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.15999 of 2004 (12) dt.09-09-2013 4 22.11.1994 (Annexure 4) the respondent DCLR, Katihar has not applied his independent judicial mind to the facts of the case and has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 48E of the B.T.Act. Even if he has exercised his powers under Section 48E (10) of the B.T. Act for passing the order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure-4), in that case also he was required to follow the procedure prescribed therein under Section 48E of the B.T. Act. Admittedly that has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure 4) cannot be sustained in law. The respondent District Collector appears to have dismissed the appeal of the petitioners without application of his independent judicial mind to the facts of the case and as such the impugned appellate order has also vitiated in the eye of law. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure 4) passed in Case No. 2 of 1992-93 by the respondent DCLR, Katihar as also the impugned appellate order dated 13.9.2004 (Annexure 5) passed in Revenue Appeal No. 517 of 1994-95 by the respondent District Collector, Katihar, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent DCLR, Katihar, with a direction to constitute a Batai Board for settlement of batai dispute raised by the respondent no.4 with respect to the lands under dispute. He shall proceed further Patna High Court CWJC No.15999 of 2004 (12) dt.09-09-2013 5 strictly in accordance with law and shall comply the procedures prescribed under Section 48E of the B.T.Act and rules made thereunder and only thereafter shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent
Decision
indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) mrl