Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16302 of 2006 ====================================================== 1. Mostt.Samundri Kuer @ Mostt.Samundri Devi, wife of late Sita Ram Rai 2. Madan Rai 3. Sadan Rai 4. Satya Narain Rai 5. Shankar Kumar @ Rai 6. Rajesh Rai 7. RameshRai, 2 to 7 are sons of late Sita Ram Rai All residents of Vilalge & P.O. Soundho Ratti, P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali 8. Smt. Laxmi devi, D/O late Sita Ram Rai,, Wife of late Manoj Rai, resident of Village and P.S.Bhagwanpur, District Muzaffarpur 9. Smt. Indar Devi, D/O late Sita Ram Rai, wife of Nagendra Rai, resident of Village & P.O. & Post Barhampur Goar Toli, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Collector, Vaishali 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, District Vaishali 4. D.C.L.R., Mahua, P.s. Mahua, District Vaishali 5. Anchal Adhikari, Goraul, P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali 6. Raghuraj Sharan, son of late Kanhaiya Prasad, resident of Village & P.O. Soundho Ratti, P.S.Goraul, District Vaishali ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8666 of 1997 ====================================================== Raghuraj Sharan, son of late Kahnaiya Prasad, resident of Village & P.O. Soundho Ratti, District Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 2 / 8 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Hazipur 3. The Circle Officer, Goraul, Vaishali 4. The Circle Inspector, Goraul, Vaishali 5. The D.C.L.R. Mahua, Vaishali 6. Samundari Devi, wife of Sita Ram Roy, resident of Village Soundho Ratti, P.S.Goraul, District Vaishali 7. Madan Rai 8. Sadan Rai 9. Satya Narain Rai 10. Shankar Rai 11. Rajesh Rai ( the case stood rejected against agaist him vide order dated 26.2.1999) 12. RameshRai ( minor) under the guardianship of his mother Samundari Devi, Nos. 7 to 12 all sons of late Sita Ram Rai, residents of Village Sondho Ratti, P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali 13. Lakshmi Devi, D/O Sita Ram Rai, wife of late Manoj Rai, resident of At & P.O. Bhagwanpur, District Muzaffarpur 14. Inder Devi, D/O late Sita Ram Rai, wife of Nagendra rai, resident of At & P.O. brahampur, Goar Toli, District Muzaffarpur ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In CWJC No.16302 of 2006)
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhrub Nr. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinhaa, A.C. to AAG XI For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Aditya Sharan, Advocate (In CWJC No.8666 of 1997) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 5 : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to GP 15 For the Respondent No. 10 : Mr. Mahesh Prasad 2, Advocate Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, Advocate ====================================================== 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 3 / 8 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 18-07-2013 In the aforesaid two writ petitions, issues of facts and issues of law are common and identical. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the matters have been taken up together for their final disposal. 2. Late Sita Ram Rai, husband of the petitioner No.1, and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 in C.W.J.C. No.16302 of 2006, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’),who are the respondents in C.W.J.C.No. 8666 of 1997, filed a petition on 2.8.1994 under section 48D of The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short ‘B.T.Act’) before the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Goraul, with a prayer that he may be declared raiyat with respect to the lands under dispute, since his father and after his death the claimant himself have been coming in bataidari possession over the lands under dispute for more than fifty years. The claimant filed his petition in the prescribed Form-C for declaring him as raiyat over the lands under dispute. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid petition Bataidari case no.4 of 1994-95 was started by the respondent Anchaladhikari, Goraul, in the District of Vaishali. Some enquiry is said to have been made. Notices also appear to have been issued to the land holder (raiyat), but the respondent Anchaladhikari, without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case, passed an order dated 30.6.1995 (Annexure-5 to C.W.J.C. No. 16302 of 2006) sending the records to the respondent D.C.L.R., Mahua for his approval, which was contrary to the scheme and mandate of Section 48D of the B.T. Act and rules made thereunder. 4. In view of the provisions under the Bihar 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 4 / 8 Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 1992 (in short Rules), in a proceeding under Section 48D of the B.T. Act, the respondent D.C.L.R. had absolutely no role and it was respondent Anchaladhikari alone who was competent to pass final order either accepting the claim of the claimant or rejecting his claim under section 48D of the B.T.Act. 5. After obtaining approval from the higher authorities, the respondent Anchaladhikari by his order dated 25.7.1997 read with order dated 30.9.1997/7.10.1997 (Annexure-6 and Annexure-8 respectively of C.W.J.C. No.16302 of 2006) declared the claimant to be raiyat with respect to the lands under dispute on deposit of 24 times of rent for being paid to the original raiyat/landholder- Raghuraj Sharan, who is respondent No. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 16302 of 2006 and the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997. 6. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997, being land holder/original raiyat of the lands under dispute, and being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the respondent Anchaladhikari, Goraul preferred an appeal before the respondent District Collector, Vaishali, giving rise to Misc. Case No. 129 of 1995-96, which was finally heard and rejected by an order dated 15.4.1997/15.7.1997 (Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997). 7. The land holder Raghuraj Sharan, being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order, as also the original orders passed by the respondent Anchaladhikari, filed the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997 in which the heirs and legal representatives of aforesaid Sita Ram Rai, the original claimant, have been impleded as respondent Nos. 6 to 14, since in the meantime aforesaid Sita Ram Rai passed away. However, the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 5 / 8 order passed by the respondent District Collector, Vaishali, cannot be legally faulted, as the respondent District Collector, Vaishali, was not vested with the powers to hear any appeal against an order passed under Section 48D of the B.T.Act by the respondent Anchaladhikari, the competent authority. 8. While the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997 was still pending before this Court, the land holder/original raiyat filed Bataidari appeal Case No.1 of 2002-03 before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, which was finally heard on 12.8.2006 and was allowed by an order dated 28.8.2006, as contained in Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. No. 16302 of 2006. 9. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the land holder/original raiyat before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, was barred by limitation. Though a petition for condonation of delay was filed, but it does not appear that the delay was ever condoned by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, yet he proceeded in the matter and decided the appeal in favour of the land holder and set aside the orders passed by the respondent Anchaladhikari, Goraul, declaring the claimants as raiyats in terms of Section 48D of the B.T. Act. 10. After having heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in both the matters at great length, and considering the entire materials available on record, this Court finds that claim raised on behalf of the claimants under Section 48D of the B.T.Act was not adjudicated upon and decided strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 48D of the B.T.Act and the rules made thereunder in the year 1992. The respondent Anchaladhikari, Goraul, appears to have obtained instructions from the higher authorities, namely, respondent D.C.L.R. and 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 6 / 8 respondent District Collector, Vaishali, and only thereafter he passed the final order, which is contrary to the mandate of the law. The respondent District Collector, Vaishali, though rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the land holder, but he did not relegate the appeal to the prescribed appellate authority, which ought to have been done by him, instead he has decided the matter on merits and rejected the appeal filed by the land holder/original raiyat. Subsequently, bataidari appeal filed before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, by the land holder was heard and decided without condoning the delay, though admittedly it had become time barred, as the aforesaid bataidari appeal is said to have been filed after a long delay of about 6 years. 11. On consideration of the entire materials available on the records and on the basis of the findings recorded above, this Court is of the opinion that entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision strictly in accordance with law by the respondent Anchaladhikari, Goraul. The parties must be given opportunity to raise all the points before the respondent Anchaladhikari, which are available to them under the law and which have been raised in these proceedings, and only therafter the respondent Anchal Adhikari is required to pass a final order in terms of Section 48 D of the B.T. Act with respect to claims raised on behalf of the claimants with respect to the lands under dispute. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the final order dated 25.7.1997 and 30.9.1997/7.9.1997 (Annexure-6 and Annexure-8 respectively of C.W.J.C. No. 16302 of 2006) passed in Bataidari Case No. 4 of 1994-95 by the respondent Anchadhikari, Goraul are hereby set aside. The impugned appellate order dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure-12 of C.W.J.C. No. 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 7 / 8 16302 of 2006) passed by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua in Bataidari Appeal No. 1 of 2002-03 is also set aside. Though the order dated 15.4.1997/15.7.1997 passed in Misc. Case No. 129 of 1995-96 (Annexure-1 of C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997) can be simply ignored, as the respondent District Collector, Vaishali had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal against an order passed under Section 48D of the B.T.Act and, therefore, it was rightly rejected, yet in order to avoid any confusion in future and by way of abundant precaution the aforesaid order dated 15.4.1997/15.7.1997 (Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 8666 of 1997) is also hereby set aside. 13. Now, the case filed by the original claimant Sita Ram Rai, who is now dead, and has been succeeded by his heirs and legal representatives, who are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 16302 of 2006, under Section 48 D of the B.T.Act shall be decided afresh strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 48D of the B.T.Act and the Rules. If the claimants have not filed their claims in the prescribed Form-C, then they shall be permitted to file a fresh petition in accordance with law and on the basis of their petition filed in prescribed Form-C the matter shall proceed and claim of the claimants shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It is clarified that any transaction/transfer made with respect to the lands under dispute by the land holder/original raiyat during the interregnum period shall not be a ground for rejecting the claim of the claimants. 14. Since the matter has become very old, therefore, in order to facilitate early disposal of the claim, the petitioners of both the cases are hereby directed to appear before the respondent 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.16302 of 2006 (6) dt.18-07-2013 8 / 8 Anchaladhikari, Goraul with a certified copy of the present order within a maximum period of six weeks from today, whereafter the respondent Anchaladhikari shall fix a firm date for hearing and proceeding in the matter further in accordance with law, and he shall make all endeavours to conclude the proceeding at an early date. 15. It is clarified that if either the claimants or the land holder/original raiyat choose not to appear and not to contest the claim before the respondent Anchaladhikari, then they shall not be allowed to challenge the final order in future on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Decision
16. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)