Patna High Court · 2013

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur, At & P.O.- Kharagpur,

District-Munger. The Anchal Adhikari, Tetia Bambar, At & P.O.-Kharagpur,

District-Munger.

Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Ramdeo Singh, resident of Mohalla Lallu Pokhar, Argara Road, P.S. –Kasim Bazar, P.O. & District- Munger.

================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla ……….Respondents Mr. Rajesh Ranjan I Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (SC-23) Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Raghwendra Kumar Singh ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3. 28-02-2013 Heard Sri Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Narayan, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 23, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4/State as well as Sri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.11804 of 2007 (3) dt.28-02-2013 counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent i.e. respondent no. 5. The petitioner, in whose favour Purcha was issued under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), has approached this Court, while invoking its writ jurisdiction with a prayer to quash an order dated 19-03-2007 passed by the Collector, Munger/respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Collector’), in Miscellaneous Basgit Purcha Case No. 5 of 2006-07, as contained in Annexure – ‘3’ to the writ petition, whereby, the Collector has cancelled Purcha, issued in favour of the petitioner, under the Act.

The Purcha was issued on 07-12-2005 in favour of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 05 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 151, Kheshra No. 812. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is liable to be set aside primarily on the ground that the learned Collector had considered those reports, which were not obtained after initiating the proceeding, vide Miscellaneous Basgit Purcha 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.11804 of 2007 (3) dt.28-02-2013 Case No. 5 of 2006-07. He submits that proceeding in the said case was initiated on 23-11-2006. He has drawn my attention to Annexure – ‘3’ to the writ petition, which is certified copy of the complete order sheet in Miscellaneous Basgit Purcha Case No. 5 of 2006-07. By referring to order- sheet, it has been highlighted that in the proceeding, save and except, issuance of notice to the parties, no order was ever issued in respect of summoning any report, either from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur (Munger) or from the Circle Officer, Tetia Bambar, Kharagpur (Munger).

But even then, the learned Collector in its order dated 19-03-2007 has referred and relied on a report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, contained in letter no. 1704 dated 28-10-2006. It was argued that the said report was alien to the proceeding in the present case due to the reason that a proceeding in Miscellaneous Basgit Purcha Case No. 5 of 2006-07 was firstly initiated on 23-11-2006 and as such, there was no occasion for passing any order prior to initiation of this proceeding and as such, the entire order passed by the Collector has been vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.11804 of 2007 (3) dt.28-02-2013 Besides this, Sri Shukla has referred to Annexure – ‘2’ to the petition, which is a photocopy of the said report i.e. report dated 28-10-2006, which has been relied upon by the Collector in its impugned order. He submits that even inquiry report suggests that since last 40 years, the petitioner was residing in a hut over the land in dispute with the permission of uncle of the respondent no.

5. It was argued that the learned Collector, though was not entitled to rely on Annexure –‘2’, at the same time, if he had discussed or relied on the said document, he was required to examine the said report in its totality, not in piecemeal. On aforesaid grounds, it has been argued that once the impugned order, even of one ground, is not sustainable in the eye of law, then entire order is liable to be set aside. Sri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5/land-owner has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by him that issuance of Purcha in favour of the petitioner was itself violative of principle of natural justice. In the said case, Purcha was issued in favour of the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.11804 of 2007 (3) dt.28-02-2013 petitioner in a revenue camp and on the same date, inquiry report was obtained and also Purcha was issued in favour of the petitioner.

He has further argued that even the petitioner has not disputed the fact that without issuance of any notice to the land-owner, Purcha was issued in a cryptic manner, which was not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that once the right of the petitioner was being taken away, it was must to afford him opportunity of hearing. He submits that it has not been disputed that without affording any opportunity to the respondent no. 5, Purcha was issued in favour of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for respondent no. 5, once issuance of Purcha was itself illegal, irregularities or illegalities committed proceeding before the Collector, is not sufficient for setting aside the order. In support of his argument regarding mandatory provision of issuance of Purcha, he has relied on a Single Bench Judgment of this Court, reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 598 (DEORAJ THAKUR V. STATE OF BIHR AND OTHERS).

It has further been argued that the learned Collector had noticed that wife of petitioner was having two 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.11804 of 2007 (3) dt.28-02-2013 acres of land and as such, the petitioner does not come within the definition of privileged persons. In sum and substance, it was argued that since the proceeding, whereby Purcha was issued in favour of the petitioner, was itself illegal, any irregularity committed by the Collector in Miscellaneous Basgit Purcha Case No. 5 of 2006-07 does not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned State counsel has supported the order impugned. He has also argued that issuance of Purcha in favour of the petitioner was illegal. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material available on record. It is true that some irregularities have been committed by learned Collector while proceeding with the case, but fact remains that initiation of proceeding for issuance of Purcha, which was issued in a revenue camp without hearing the respondent no.