Jharkhand High Court
Dwarika Mandal @ Dwarika Sunil vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2004(1)JCR443(JHR)], 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 2214, (2004) 1 JLJR 324 (2004) 1 JCR 443 (JHA), (2004) 1 JCR 443 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. In the present writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 9.12.1996 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Patna whereby, on the basis of the enquiry report dated 1.9.1984, of the then Joint Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna remanding the case to the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih for fresh hearing of the case i.e. State of Bihar v. Sri Sobhi Sundi and Ors. under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, with respect to the lands of in plot No. 904 area 38 decimals and plot No. 905 area 3.19, acres total area 3.56, in village Kharkho, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih and also the order dated 13.12.1996 as contained in An-nexure-7 passed the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih who consequent to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, i.e. Annexure-6, issued notices to the parties.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the plot No. 904 bears an area of 38 decimals which is a part of Khata No. 36 of village Kharkho was recorded as "Bhind" In the records of rights published in the year 1935, whereas the plot No. 905 which is also a part of Khata No. 36 was recorded as "Ahar" in the said record of rights. Accordingly to the petitioner, the above lands. were changed their character after publication of record of rights while the then landlord submitted his return at the time of vesting of estate on 20th March, showing the aforesaid land as "Dhankhet". The then land lord sold one half portion of the above lands to one Etwari Mahato and one half to Somar Sundi. Etwari Mahato sold his one half share of the aforesaid plot i.e. 904 and 905 to Nagesdhwar Mandal and Dwarika Mandal by a registered sale deed dated 11.6.1969 and accordingly the purchasers came in possession of the aforesaid lands purchased by them.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that lands, which were in their possession, had already changed Its character and they were cultivating the same. It is stated that some of the villagers filed objection on the ground that the lands were illegally settled with the petitioner and therefore, enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Giridih who reported to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms that the lads in question (sic) "Ahar" and "Bhind" had ceased to exist long before the Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force and that the purchasers were in possession of the aforesaid lands as their raiyati lands and no sarait Interest is left in the land to enable the State to interfere. On the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector rejected the objection filed by the villagers.
The appeal against the said order of the Deputy Collector was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Giridih, by order dated 21.8.1971. It is further stated that the subsequently again some villagers filed objection in respect of the above lands and further enquiry was conducted but again it was found that lands have changed their character and they have been accepted as Raiyati lands since long. The Deputy Commissioner also accepted the report and directed the lands to be treated as Raiyati lands of the purchasers and accordingly the direction was made that the rent as assessed for the lands be accepted from the purchasers.
4. Thereafter at the instance of the State Government a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was initiated in respect of the aforesaid lands before the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector who by his order dated 26.12.1985 held that the proceeding is not fit to continue as the lands in question were Raiyati Lands of the purchasers and the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950, is not applicable. The said order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application.
5. The Additional Collector vide his order dated 18.5.1989 as contained in An-nexure-5 to the writ application also gave a finding that the lands in question had become "Dhankhet" long long ago. He further held that there was no "Ahar" or "Bhind" any where in the vicinity of the lands since long and thereby the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was not maintainable.
6. According to the petitioner, though the matter was set at rest by the Competent Authority but at the instance of the some vested interest the respondent No. 2 has again initiated a second proceeding under Section 4(h) of the said Act with respect to the said very lands and the matter has again been remanded to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Giridih to hear the case afresh and then to pass a fresh order. The letter of the Deputy Commissioner in this regard, for initiating a fresh enquiry under Section 4(h) has been annexed as An-nexure-6 to the writ application. This very letter of the Deputy Commissioner as contained in Annexure-6 dated 9.12.1996 is under challenge in this writ application.
7. The main grounds for challenge of the proceeding are that since by various orders passed by the competent authorities from time to time the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act had already been terminated in favour of the purchasers long back i.e. 18.5.1989, and hence the initiation of the fresh proceeding with respect to the same very land was absolutely bad in law on the ground that no appeal was preferred earlier by the State against the order dated 18.5.1989 terminating the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the said Act and since the above order had became final and became binding on the State and therefore, respondents have no authority under the law to reopen the matter again.
8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Bidyut Kumar Ganguly v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in, 1980 PLJR 564.
9. On the other hand Mr. Annop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this writ application itself is premature as no final order has yet been passed and only notices have been issued by the L.R.D.C., therefore, the petitioner should file his show cause before the L.R.D.C. who shall pass an order after making fresh enquiry into the matter. He further submits that if on earlier occasion the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Lands Reforms Act has wrongly been decided then certainly a second proceeding can be initiated at the instance of the State. He urther submits that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order of the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application.
10. It has not been denied by the respondents that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Lands Reforms Act was already initiated earlier and it was finally decided by the Additional Collector after full fledged enquiry vide order dated 18.5,1989, and thereafter rent as assessed was accepted from the purchasers with respect to the same very land. It further appears that the. order of the Additional Collector dated 18.5.1989, terminating the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act has already become final because no appeal as provided under Section 8 of the Bihar Lands Reforms Act, was preferred and, therefore, the order dated 18.5.1989 passed by the Addl. Collector cannot be re-opened. The case in hand is fully covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Bidyut Kumar Ganguly, (supra) wherein it has been held as follows :--
"It is absolutely clear that all the proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Act had terminated in favour of the petitioner. Those orders passed under Section 4(h) are appealable under Section 8 of the Act, but no appeal was preferred by the State and therefore, the order became final, which applies equally to a private individual and the State. Now the State is not competent to reopen the matter when various authorities have decided the question more than once after fully applying their mind to the facts of the case and without any fresh material whatsoever."
11. In view of my above discussions and findings relying on the decision in the case of Bidyut Kumar Ganguly (supra) I hold that the State Government was not at all competent to re-open the matter as the various authorities decided the question after fully applying their mind.
12. In the result this application is allowed and the order dated 9.12.1996 as contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Glridih and also the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act pursuant to the order dated 13.12.1996 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as contained in Annexure-7 are hereby quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.