Patna High Court · 1993
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10196 of 2004 ====================================================== Manmati Devi wife of Bhubneshwar Singh, resident of Village- Bithra, P.S. Murtha, District- Arwal, Expunged vide Court’s order dated 21. 01.2013 and substituted by her legal heir and representative her husband, namely, Bhubneshwar Singh son of late Gauri Singh, resident of Village- Bithra, P.S. Murtha, District- Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, at Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Collector, Arwal. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jehanabad. 5. Shri Navendra Kumar son of Bhola Sharma, resident of Village- Bithra, P.S. Kurtha, in the district of Arwal. 6. Ashok Kumar 7. Sanjay Kumar, both sons of Bhuneshwar Singh, resident of Village- Bithra, P.S. Kurtha, in the district of Arwal. 8. Chandrakanta Sharma wife of late Ramkumar Sharma, resident of Village- Bithra, P.S. Kurtha, in the district of Arwal. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 3 For the Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, AC to GP-15 For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Murari Prasad Sinha
Legal Reasoning
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 10 27-06-2013 Heard the parties. 2. Original petitioner, Manmati Devi, donee of the lands in dispute, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the resolution dated 03.08.2004 (Annexure-5) passed in Case No.241 of 2002 by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna whereby while dismissing the aforesaid revision application filed on behalf of the aforesaid Manmati Devi, the impugned appellate
Decision
order dated 02.08.2002/06.09.2002 (Annexure-4) passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 11/ D.M./2002- 2003 by the respondent District Collector, Arawal, as also the Patna High Court CWJC No.10196 of 2004 (10) dt.27-06-2013 2/6 impugned original order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure-3/1) passed by the respondent D.C.L.R., Jehanabad have been affirmed. 3. The facts involved in the present proceeding can be put in a narrow compass. The respondent no.8, Chandrakanta Sharma executed a sale deed dated 20th May 1993 in favour of respondent no. 6 & 7 with respect to the lands bearing Khata No. 85, Plot No. 13, area 1 acre 9 decimals situate at Mauza Bithra, P.S. Kurtha, District Arwal. The aforesaid sale deed was duly registered on 10.04.2000 and has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After registration of the aforesaid sale deed respondent no. 6 and 7 are said to have executed a deed of gift in favour of their mother, namely, Smt. Manmati Devi on 08.06.2000 and the deed of gift has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said deed of gift is said to have been registered on the same day, i.e. 08.06.2000. Respondent no. 5 claiming to be boundary raiyat of the vended land, filed a petition on 07.07.2000 under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short “the Land Ceiling Act”), which gave rise to Land Ceiling Case No. 7 of 2000-01 in the court of respondent DCLR, Jehanabad. The aforesaid pre-emption case filed by the respondent no.5 was originally against the purchasers, namely, the respondent no. 6 and 7 only, and the donee, namely, Smt. Manmati Devi was not impleaded as a party at the initial stage. However, subsequently, respondent no. 5 filed a petition on 09.11.2000 for impleading the donee also as a party in the pre-emption proceeding, which was allowed. The respondent No. 6 and 7, the original purchasers, filed their show cause resisting the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of the respondent no.5 on the ground Patna High Court CWJC No.10196 of 2004 (10) dt.27-06-2013 3/6 that they are no longer owners of the land in dispute, as they have gifted the vended lands to their mother. On consideration of materials produced by the parties, respondent DCLR is said to have rejected the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of the respondent no.5 on 14.06.2001. The aforesaid order has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. However, on the same day respondent DCLR is said to have passed another order whereby the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of the respondent no.5 was allowed holding the deed of gift as sham and fraudulent transaction. The appeal preferred by the original petitioner Manmati Devi was rejected by the appellate authority and the revision filed by her also failed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of all the three orders passed by authorities under the Land Ceiling Act. 4. During the pendency of the present writ petition the Original petitioner, Manmati Devi died on 21.02.2011, therefore, I.A. No. 4093 of 2011 was filed, which was allowed by a Bench of this Court by order dated 21.01.2013 and the present petitioner has been substituted in her place as her heir and legal representative. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders on merit, has submitted that apparently the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of the respondent no. 5 has not been decided in its proper perspective on examination of materials available on record, and justice does not appear to have been done to all the parties. It is contended that the respondent DCLR, Jehanabad, the original authority, passed two types of orders on the same day i.e. on 14.06.2001. Originally by an order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure-3) he has dismissed the Patna High Court CWJC No.10196 of 2004 (10) dt.27-06-2013 4/6 petition under Section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act filed on behalf of the respondent no.5. However, on extraneous consideration, he changed his previous order and on the same day he passed another order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure-3/1) whereby claim of pre-emption made on behalf of the respondent no. 5 was allowed. The photocopy of the first order has been brought on record as Annexure-3. From perusal of the said order it appears that it was prepared on the government papers used and supplied for writing orders by the quasi judicial authorities. The order contained in Annexure-3 contains the signature also of the then DCLR. Jehanabad. 6. Noticing the aforesaid feature of the case a Bench of this Court, by order dated 05.04.2005, had directed the learned State counsel to file counter affidavit, but despite the aforesaid order counter-affidavit was not filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its functionaries. Thereafter again by orders dated 14.02.2013 and 12.04.2013 learned State counsel was directed to seek instructions and file a counter-affidavit, so that the matter is finally disposed of. Despite all these indulgences granted by this Court, counter affidavit has not been filed till date on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, yet in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 it has no where been stated that the order contained in Annexure-3 purported to have been passed by the respondent DCLR, Jehanabad was a forged document. He has resisted the prayer of the petitioner on some other grounds and merit. 7. Taking into consideration the entire factual background, Patna High Court CWJC No.10196 of 2004 (10) dt.27-06-2013 5/6 this Court is of the opinion that the entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision. It is well known maxim that justice should not only be done, but it should appear to have been done. It further appears that the issues raised on behalf of the parties have not been properly and correctly decided with the application of independent judicial mind. The respondent DCLR could not have legally passed two types of orders on the same day. By one order he has dismissed the claim of pre-emption, whereas by other order he has allowed the claim of pre-emption. This creates grave doubts about the legality, bonafide and correctness of the impugned order passed by the respondent DCLR. This aspect of the matter has not been properly and effectively gone into either by the appellate authority or by the revisional authority. The impugned order passed by the respondent DCLR apparently seems to be on the basis of certain extraneous consideration, which has vitiated the entire proceeding. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the orders contained in Annexure-3, 3/1, 4 and 5 all are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent DCLR for fresh decision strictly in accordance with law. 9. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioner as also respondent no.5, who are represented through their lawyers, are directed to appear before the respondent DCLR, Jehanabad with a certified copy of the present order on 5th August 2013, whereafter the respondent DCLR shall be obliged to fix a firm date for proceeding in the matter afresh. It is clarified that before passing the fresh order the respondent DCLR shall be obliged to give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds to the extent Patna High Court CWJC No.10196 of 2004 (10) dt.27-06-2013 6/6 indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)