Letters Patent Appeal No. 1858 of 2010 · Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court LPA No.1858 of 2010 (12) dt.17-07-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1858 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2749 of 2002 ====================================================== 1. Briksha Singh @ Biraksha Singh S/O Late Shiv Nath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 2. Jawahar Singh S/O Late Shiv Nath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 3. Krishna Singh S/O Late Shiv Nath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 4. Gangh Singh @ Ganga Singh S/O Late Shiv Nath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 5. Smt. Kanti Devi D/O Late Shiv Nath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 6. Smt. Kanti Devi @ Smt. Shanti Devi D/O Late Shiv Nath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 7. Ram Ayodhya Singh S/O Late Bisnath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 8. Bhola Singh S/O Late Bisnath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran. 9. Jamuna Singh S/O Late Bisnath Singh R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran. 10. Jang Bahadur Singh S/O Late Bisnath Singh R/O Vill.-Srai Kandi, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 11. Rang Bahadur S/O Late Bisnath Singh R/O Vill.-Srai Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. Versus .... .... Appellant/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Raxual (East Champaran), Motihari. 3. Radh Krishna Yadav S/O Late Laxmi Yadav And Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 4. Jagat Narayan Yadav S/O Late Laxmi Yadav And Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 5. Awadh Yadav S/O Late Laxmi Yadav And Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.- Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 6. Amar Yadav S/O Late Laxmi Yadav And Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.- Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 7. Puja Yadav S/O Late Laxmi Yadav And Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.- Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 8. Sharma Yadav S/O Late Jagdish Yadav, Grand S/O Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 9. Randhir Yadav S/O Late Jagdish Yadav, Grand S/O Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 10. Dharmendra Yadav S/O Late Jagdish Yadav, Grand S/O Surti Devi R/O Vill.- Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 11. Rabindra Yadav S/O Late Jagdish Yadav, Grand S/O Surti Devi R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 12. Most. Panna Devi W/O Late Jagdish Yadav Who Was S/O Surti Yadav R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, P.Po.-Chainpur, Distt.-East Champaran. 13. Most. Girija Devi W/O Late Ambika Yadav, D/O Surti Yadav R/O Vill.-Khari, P.S.-Banjariya, Distt.-East Champaran. 14. Naresh Yadav S/O Late Ambika Yadav R/O Vill.-Gurhgauna, P.O.-Mali, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 15. Umesh Yadav S/O Late Ambika Yadav R/O Vill.-Gurhgauna, P.O.-Mali, P.S.- Patna High Court LPA No.1858 of 2010 (12) dt.17-07-2013 2
Legal Reasoning
report. We are of the opinion that this finding suffers from error of record. Learned counsel for the private respondents did attempt to persuade us that if no report was submitted by the Board within six months under Section 48(E)(10) the DCLR was empowered to pass final orders. For that fact situation to apply, again there had to be a recital in the order sheet not only with regard to the appointment of a Chairman and the Members but Patna High Court LPA No.1858 of 2010 (12) dt.17-07-2013 5 also that after expiry of the statutory time no report had been submitted before the DCLR assumed jurisdiction. That also is completely wanting in the entire order sheet discussed by us hereinabove. The
Arguments
Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 16. Laxman Mahto S/O Late Atuwal Mahto R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 17. Lalan Mahto S/O Late Raja Ram Mahto R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.-Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. 18. Jata Shankar Mahto S/O Late Nakchhed Mahto R/O Vill.-Sri Kandi, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.-East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Devendra Prasad, Adv. Mr. Kumar Malendu, Adv. For the Private Respondent : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 12 17-07-2013 We have heard counsel for the Appellants, State and for the appearing private respondents. The present Appeal arises from order dated 08.09.2010 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 2749 of 2002. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that earlier the private respondents had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2898 of 1982 challenging the order granting bataidari rights in favour of the Appellants. The writ application was dismissed. In LPA No. 41 of 1988 preferred by the private respondents, on 12.12.1997 a Division Bench held that no attempts for an amicable settlement by constitution of a Board, a statutory compulsion under Section 48(E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 had been followed. The order of the DCLR dated 14.07.1982 was set aside and the matter Patna High Court LPA No.1858 of 2010 (12) dt.17-07-2013 3 was remitted to the DCLR for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The entire order sheet of the fresh proceeding commencing from 14.05.1999 culminating in the order dated 05.03.2001 does not demonstrate that the direction of the Division Bench has been complied with by constituting a Board for amicable settlement. There is no mention of any Chairman of the Board and the Members nominated on behalf of the parties. Any procedure for settlement followed outside that provided for by the statute is a nullity and does not tantamount to statutory compliance. The learned Single Judge therefore erred in coming to the conclusion that a Board had been constituted which gave its report and which was not accepted due to some technical problem in the report. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that earlier a Board had been constituted. The order dated 23.02.2001 adequately reflects that the Appellants refused to agree for amicable settlement. There is thus no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. After the order dated 12.12.1997 in LPA No. 41 of 1988 whatever may have transpired in the earlier bataidari case including the order in C.W.J.C. No. 2898 of 1982 after it being set aside cannot be seen for any purpose whatsoever. As directed by Patna High Court LPA No.1858 of 2010 (12) dt.17-07-2013 4 the Division Bench, there had to be a fresh procedure for amicable settlement by appointment of a Chairman and Members. The entire order sheet placed by the Appellants commencing from 14.05.1999 to the order dated 05.03.2001 does not contain any reference to the Constitution of a Board for amicable settlement much less the names of members on behalf of the parties. The reference in the proceedings dated 08.01.2001 that the villagers had tried to persuade the parties for an amicable settlement and which proved unproductive as the Appellant was declining to accept the same recorded in the order dated 23.02.2001 is not compliance with the statutory procedure. We do not find any material on record to affirm the finding of the learned Single Judge that in pursuance of the earlier order of the Court the DCLR appointed the Chairman of the Board which subsequently gave a
Decision
order dated 05.03.2001 not being inconsonance with the orders passed in LPA No. 41 of 1988 is not sustainable on the face of it. We therefore set aside the order dated 05.03.2001 and the order under Appeal dated 08.09.2010. The matter is remanded to the DCLR for proceeding afresh in accordance with statutory provisions for amicable settlement and then passing a fresh appropriate order after hearing the parties in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of four months provided the parties themselves cooperate. The Appeal is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/-