Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5224 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nehal Ahmad Khan S/O Late Md. Reyaz Khan R/O Mohalla- Murgia Chak, Ward No. 31, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga 2. Md. Ghulam Abbas S/O Late Mustaquim R/O Mohalla- Murgia Chak, Ward No. 31, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga 3. Syeda Nasreen Tolat W/O S.M.Zafir Ahmad Through Her Power Attorney Holder S.M.Anwar Iqbal, S/O Late S.M.Zobair, Mohalla- Chakrahmat, Ward No.-31, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector Darbhanga 3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Pramandal Darbhanga 4. The Settlement Officer Cum Superintendent Of Survey, Darbhanga 5. The Charge Officer Survey Settlement Office Lalbag Darbhanga 6. The Assistant Settlement Officer Cum Assistant Superintendent Of Survey Darbhanga 7. Rajiullah Khan S/O Late Nurul Hoda Khan R/O Mohalla Murgiachak, Ward No. 31, P.S. Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abbas Haider For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Singh For the State : Mr. (AAG2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER *************** 08. 30./10/2013 The three petitioners seek quashing of the order, dated 10.09.2007, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga. The said order is Annexure- 12 to the writ application. By virtue of this order, it is alleged that the Commissioner has wrongly and illegally set aside the previous order, dated 26.09.1998 of the Superintendent of Survey Settlement Office, Darbhanga,
Legal Reasoning
which in turn was based in the background or light of the Hon'ble High Court’s Order, dated 19.05.1998. The Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2010 (9) dt.30-10-2013 2/6 effect of the order of Divisional Commissioner is that the survey entries of the disputed plots belonging to the petitioners, stand modified or restored in the name of the Private-respondent No. 7. 2. The present writ application is part of a long drawn out litigation, going on between the parties for entry of names in the survey records. 3. Short facts, which are required to be noticed is that the Assistant Superintendent of Survey vide an order, dated 10.01.1993 ordered recording of name of Private-respondent No. 7 over 19 plots. Out of 19 plots, Plot No. 924, 927, 935 and 936 are said to be disputed for which the petitioners had approached the office of Superintendent of Survey, assailing the order of the Assistant Superintendent. The necessary correction was ordered to be made in favour of the petitioners at the instance of Petitioner No. 3. The order of Superintendent of Survey is Annexure- 5, dated 09.05.1996. 4. Order of Superintendent of Survey was assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 9427 of 1996 before the High Court. The writ application filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 7 was allowed by virtue of Annexure- 6. One of the grounds, which was held by the Learned Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2010 (9) dt.30-10-2013 3/6 Single Judge was that the successor Settlement Officer had no business to undo the order passed by his predecessor in office. Thereafter there were more rounds of litigation. What is of significance is that despite quashing of the order by the Hon'ble High Court in terms of Annexure- 6, on an office noting, the Collector, acting as a Settlement Officer, reopened the matter at the instance of the petitioners, creating prejudice to the right of private-respondent. The private-respondent, therefore, moved the Divisional Commissioner, who taking note of the background to the dispute interfered with the order, giving certain directions to the Survey Superintendent as well recommending action against the employees, who were responsible for creating mischief in the matter. The order, therefore, is under challenge in the present writ application. 5. Counsel representing the petitioners submits that the plots in question were wrongly ordered to be entered in the survey records. The whole thing was manipulated by the private-respondent and therefore, for the necessary correction and undoing the illegality committed by the officials they took remedial measure to undo the entries. The various orders passed by the authorities from time to time is an indicator of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2010 (9) dt.30-10-2013 4/6 assertion of their status with regard to the disputed plots and the right of these petitioners to get their name entered in the survey records. 6. Counsel representing Respondent No. 7, however, submits that there was nothing wrong with the decision taken by the Assistant Survey Officer. The petitioners never took recourse to law as prescribed under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act and Rules. No proper appeal was filed and an effort was made to undo a decision which was validly and rightly taken after due notice and information to one and all. It was in this background that by virtue of Annexure- 6, the High Court had to set aside the order of the Survey Superintendent as well. Despite such a finding given by the High Court, instead of allowing the matter to rest, an ingenious method was adopted to overcome the High Court’s decision by placing the dispute on the administrative side as a file nothing and on the file noting the District Magistrate passes an order, which was totally illegal and uncalled for. 7. The submission of the counsel, representing the petitioners is required to be seen in the context of what the Divisional Commissioner has had to record in the detailed order, contained in Annexure – 12. Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2010 (9) dt.30-10-2013 5/6 A reading of the said order would show the way things have been manipulated by these petitioners to obtain an order not strictly in accordance with law and procedure but by an ingenious method adopted at the level of the Collector-cum-Settlement Officer. The detailed narration which is available in the order of the Divisional Commissioner is surely an indicator that whatever had been done initially by way of entries in favour of the private-respondent, was based on due enquiry, right of hearing as well as material and evidence which was produced at the relevant time. In the normal course the matter should have been allowed to rest, but it was not done so and, therefore, the Divisional Commissioner has not only directed the Superintendent of Survey to undo the mischief which had been done as well as take action against the persons, who had mischievously put up a note before the Collector on administrative side and obtain an order as if it was statutory in nature. 8. After having meticulously gone through the order of the Divisional Commissioner, as we well as the narration of events, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that no case is made out on behalf of the petitioners to interfere with the finding given by the Divisional Commissioner. In fact the order of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2010 (9) dt.30-10-2013 6/6 Divisional Commissioner if interfered with will surely do injustice with Respondent No. 7 as also give seal of approval to what has been done by or obtained by the petitioners from the Collector illegally. The finding given by the Divisional Commissioner is a complete answer to all the contentions which have been made on behalf of the petitioners. The writ application, therefore, has no merit, it is dismissed. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)