Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5075 of 2006 ====================================================== Chandra Mohan Singh, son of Ram Ashish Singh, resident of village- Basadhia, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District-Samastipur Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Land Reforms, Bihar 2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Samastipur 3. The Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Samastipur 4. Urmila Devi, wife of Ram Chandar Singh, daughter of Late Anup Singh, resident of village-Basadhia, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur 5. Maheshwar Pd. Singh, I.A.S., Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.C. Thakur {SC (C)4} Mr. Sachchidanand Choudhary Mr. Lovekush Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 16. 04-12-2013 Heard Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Legal Reasoning
the petitioner, Mr. Sachchidanand Choudahry, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and Mr. Hare Ram Singh, Assisting Counsel to G.P. 22 for the State. The writ petition was filed questioning the order dated 10.03.2006 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No. 66 of 2001- 02 by the respondent no. 2 Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby the Collector in exercise of powers vested under Section 5(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Patna High Court CWJC No.5075 of 2006 (16) dt.04-12-2013 2 Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been pleased to grant permission to the respondent no. 4 for sale of five bighas of land which forms subject matter of the ceiling proceedings. The facts of the matter briefly stated is that whereas the petitioner happens to be the descendant from the daughter side, the respondent no. 4 is the daughter of the son of Janki Singh, the common ancestor. It is the case of the petitioner that a ceiling proceeding was initiated with respect of the land belonging to the father of the respondent no. 4 Anup Singh giving rise to Ceiling Case No. 31 of 1973-74 but upon due enquiry the land being found within the ceiling laws, the Sub Divisional Officer as Collector under the Act vide order passed on 26.08.1975 dropped the proceedings. The said proceedings was sought to be revived again in the year 1985 when the father of the private respondent moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 733 of 2002 questioning the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Ceiling Act to reopen the proceedings, having dropped the same way back in the year 1975. Vide order
Decision
passed on 28.01.2002 this Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the father of the private respondent to file an appeal before the Collector of the district. Up to this stage the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.5075 of 2006 (16) dt.04-12-2013 3 is not in the picture. It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the liberty granted to the father of the private respondent late Anup Singh to file an appeal, an appeal was filed giving rise to L.C. Appeal No. 66 of 2001-02. The petitioner also filed an appeal being aggrieved by the reopening of the ceiling proceedings which was numbed as L.C. Appeal No. 65 of 2001-02. It is the case of the petitioner that since both the appeals were relatable to the same subject matter, it was being posted on the same date. It is further the case of the petitioner that although on 10.03.2006 the appeal of the petitioner bearing L.C. Appeal No. 65 of 2001-02 and the appeal of Anup Singh bearing L.C. Appeal No. 66 of 2001-02 were listed alongwith other appeals but the Collector while adjourning other appeals on grounds of being engaged in other work, chose to pass the impugned order in the appeal filed by Anup Singh which also accompanied a substitution petition filed by the private respondent consequent upon the death of Anup Singh and while allowing the substitution also granted permission for sale of five bighas of land which request had remained pending since 2004. According to the writ petitioner the order dated 10.03.2006 is a mala fide exercise of power by the Collector inasmuch as the Collector without holding the court on the said Patna High Court CWJC No.5075 of 2006 (16) dt.04-12-2013 4 date had passed the said order without affording opportunity to the petitioner and which is manifest from the order sheet of the other appeal cases which record that the Collector was busy in other administrative works. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition has been filed. I have heard Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sachchidanand Choudahry for the private respondents. Mr. Shyam Nandan with specific reference to Annexure- 4 and 5 series has submitted that of the 26 cases listed on 10.03.2006, whereas in each of the other appeals, it has been mentioned that the Collector was busy in other works but the order in L.C. Appeal No. 66 of 2001-02 of Anup Singh records a permission to sale while allowing a substitution. According to him the Collector never held court on the said date and the order is a mala fide exercise. Learned counsel further in support of his argument has relied upon an information provided by the legal cell under the Right to Information Act in which it is stated that on 10.03.2006 the Government Pleader had submitted only one bill relatable to T.S. No. 257 of 2005 pending in the court of Sub Judge. The information is placed at Annexure-8 of I.A. No. 8748 of 2010. Relying thereupon it is sought to be canvassed that this Patna High Court CWJC No.5075 of 2006 (16) dt.04-12-2013 5 single incident of a bill being submitted only in one case is sufficient to prove that the Government Pleader did not attend the court on 10.03.2006 before the Collector and his appearance noted in the impugned order is an incorrect recording by the Collector. It has also been argued by Mr. Shyam Nandan that following the permission granted to the private respondents, several transactions have been entered which also includes portion of land which has either been received by him through gift from Anup Singh or formed part of the land belonging to his father Ramashish Singh. It is further the contention of Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan that in absence of any attendance slip being found in the record, the charges stands proved. Learned counsel for the State and the private respondents both have contested the argument of Mr. Shyam Nandan to submit that the order impugned nowhere reflects any such circumstances and considering the specific stipulation provided in the impugned order that the permission granted relatable to five bighas of land would be adjustable against the unit marked for the private respondent, no prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the records have been summoned and the impugned order does form part of the record. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Patna High Court CWJC No.5075 of 2006 (16) dt.04-12-2013 6 signature on the order sheet is forged or the authority passing the impugned order lacks jurisdiction. The order forming part of L.C. Appeal No. 66 of 2001-02, in absence of any extraordinary circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The reliance upon the information given by the legal cell placed at Annexure-8 regarding the only bill being submitted by the Government Pleader on 10.03.2006 relatable to a title suit again in no manner drives home the allegation that the Government Pleader did not attend the hearing of the appeal as recorded by the Collector. Definitely the concern of Mr. Shyam Nandan that following the order passed by the Collector, the private respondent has engaged in transaction of the lands exclusively belonging to him, does hold substance but since the matter is open before the appellate forum under the Act and since the impugned order categorically mentions that the permission so granted would be adjustable against the unit of Anup Singh or his successor, any transaction made by the private respondent would obviously be governed and would be taken note by the authorities in seisin of the ceiling proceedings while passing the final order. This Court however is not persuaded with the argument of learned counsel on the issue of malafide exercise of statutory Patna High Court CWJC No.5075 of 2006 (16) dt.04-12-2013 7 powers by the Collector and thus does not feel the necessity to interfere with the same and the writ petition is disposed of affording liberty to the petitioner to raise all other issues during the course of the ceiling proceedings. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)