The Additional Collector, Madhubani, having his office at Madhubani, P.S v. and District Madhubani
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4431 of 1991 =========================================================== 1. Kallar Das @ Kolar Das 2. Sobha Das son of late Arjun Das 3. Chauthi Das son of late Faudar Das 4. Babulal Das son of late Adhin Das 5. (i) Most. Anar devi, wife of late Jaleshwar Rai. (ii) Ram Chaudra Rai (iii) Sobha Rai, all resident of village and P.S. Laukahi District Maelhubami 6. (i) Md. Islam (ii) Md. Julbril (iii) Id Mohammad, all are sons of late Mohid mian, all residents of village and P.S. Loukehi, District Madhubani 7. Vidyanand Sah son of late Jagarnathi Sah 8. Sabir Mian son of Md. Taiyab Mian 9. Gajadhar Sah, son of Sri Sahdeo Sah 10. Izharul Haque son of late Kaila Mian 11. Abdulla Mian son of late Md. Ishmail 12. Rashid Mian son of late Kankir Mian 13. Sattan Mian son of late Kankir Mian 14. Meraj Mian son of late Noor Mohammad Mian, all residents of village Laukahi, P.S. Laukahi, District Madhubani. …. …. Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Collector, Madhubani, having his office at Madhubani, P.S. Versus and District Madhubani 3. The Sub divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, having his office at Jhanjharpur, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jhanjharpur, having his office at Jhanjharpur, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani 5. Raj Kumar Prasad Sah @ Raj Kumar Prasad Gupta, son of late Jadu Nandan Sah 6. Ram Lakhan Prasad Gupta son of late Jadu Nandan Sah, both Nos. 5 and 6 are residents of village Laukahi, P.S. Laukahi, District Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3831 of 2000 =========================================================== Raj Kumar Prasad, son of late Yadunandan Prasad, resident of village Laukahi, P.S. Laukahi, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Additional Collector, Madhubani 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparash Sub-Division District Madhubani 4. D.C.L.R. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani 5. Circle Officer –cum-Chairman, Batai Board, Phulparash Block, District Madhubani. 6. Circle Officer, Ghoghardiha Block, District Madhubani 7. Circle Officer, Laukahi Block, district Madhubani 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.4431 of 1991 dt.29-11-2013 2 / 6 8. Chauthi Das son of Poddar Das resident of village Laukahi, P.S. Laukahi, District Madhubani 9. (i) Anar Dis wife of late Jaleshwar Rai, 10. Vidyanand Sah son of late Jagarnath Sah 11. Abdulla Mian son of late Md. Ismail 12. (i) Rajid Mian son of Rashid Mian.
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No. 4431 of 1991) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Lal, Adv. Mr. Madhu Sudan Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Sharma, A.C. to PAAG Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, Adv. (In CWJC No. 3831 of 2000) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Thakur, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Sharma, A.C. to PAAG Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Gautam, Adv. Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-11-2013 Heard Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1998, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Sharma, A.C. to PAAG for the State in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991 and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Gautam for the private respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 3831 of 2000. The private respondent No.5 in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991 has filed the 2nd writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3831 of 2000 questioning the various orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Land 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.4431 of 1991 dt.29-11-2013 3 / 6 Reforms in exercise of powers vested under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) without intimation to the petitioner.
Decision
Whereas the writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991 are the Purcha holder under Section 48E of the Act, the land holders are respondent No.5 namely Raj Kumar Prasad Sah @ Raj Kumar Prasad Gupta and respondent No.6, Ram Lakhan Prasad Gupta both sons of late Jadu Nandan Sah. Of the two private respondents, respondent No.5, Raj Kumar Prasad has preferred the second writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3831 of 2000 questioning the entire proceeding culminating into issuance of Purcha in favour of different persons. Short facts of the matter is that on an application made by the petitioners of the 1st writ petition claiming to be under raiyats and by invoking the provisions of Section 48E of the Act, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms admitted their claims and pursuant whereto, Purchas were issued in their favour. Although the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms which is the foundation for issuance of the Purcha and is placed at Annexure-5 of the first writ petition refers to an appointment of a ‘Panch’ on behalf of the landholders and the Board so constituted decided in favour of the under raiyats resulting in the issuance of the Purcha but the landholder being aggrieved by such decision, preferred appeal before the Additional 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.4431 of 1991 dt.29-11-2013 4 / 6 Collector giving rise to Appeal No. 64 of 1985-86, Appeal No. 279 of 89-90 and Appeal No. 163 of 1990-91. These three appeals arising out of the various proceedings initiated under Section 48E of the Act, it was the categorical stand of the land holders that they did not receive any notice in this regard and that the ‘Panch’ appointed on their behalf was without their consent. In other words, the entire proceeding culminating into issuance of Purcha, was questioned on the anvil of non participation by the landholders in absence of notice and irregular constitution of the Board in absence of consent being obtained from the landholder for appointment of ‘Panch’ on their behalf. The appellate authority being satisfied by the ground raised by the landholders to question the proceedings, while setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land, Reforms remitted the matter back to him for its disposal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. The under raiyats being aggrieved by the order of remand are before this Court in the present writ petition which was admitted on 6.1.1992 and has remained pending for the past 21 years. The other writ petition filed by the landholders question various orders of issuance of Purchas by the Circle Officer under different proceedings in a sweeping manner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991 and for the private respondents in 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.4431 of 1991 dt.29-11-2013 5 / 6 C.W.J.C. No. 3831 of 2000 and perused the records. Although the respondent-land holders have appeared through Vakalatnama in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991 and are petitioners in other writ petition but they are conspicuous by their absence. Of the two writ petition, the State is represented only in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991, there is no representation in the second writ petition. The foundation of the order impugned in the C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991 is the denial of opportunity to the landlords in participating in the proceedings and his right in appointment of ‘Panch’. The appellate authority having heard the parties was satisfied that the landholders have been denied their opportunity. There is nothing on record to contest this position or to demonstrate that the landholders had been duly served and had appeared and also exercised their option of appointment of ‘Panch’ in terms of the provisions of Section 48E of the Act. In view of the uncontroverted circumstance set forth above, no infirmity can be found in the order impugned in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991. This Court fails to appreciate the reasons for filing the second writ petition at the instance of land holders specially in view of the order passed and impugned in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 1991, on an 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.4431 of 1991 dt.29-11-2013 6 / 6 appeal filed by the landholder. For the reasons aforementioned, no cause for interference is made out in the orders impugned and thus two writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms to discharge his obligation as cast upon him under the order of remand in accordance with law and after hearing the contesting parties. It goes without saying that until a fresh order is passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, the parties shall maintain status quo. An expeditious disposal preferably within three months of the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order would be well appreciated. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)