Patna High Court - Orders
Gauri Nath Jha vs State & Ors on 9 July, 2013
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1825 of 1993
======================================================
Gauri Nath Jha, son of late Daaya Nath Jha, resident of Village Mangrouni,
P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhubani
2. The Collector, Madhubani
3. The Circle Officer, Raj Nagar, Madhubani
4. Deopal Singh Burjia, the then Collector, Madhubani, at present
Deputy Secretary, Department of Home, Union of India, New Delhi
5. Shri Nand Kishore Prasad, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Madhubani, presently posted as Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur
6. Ram Bilas Paswan, Member of the Parliament, New Delhi
7. Devendra Yadav, Member of the Parliament, New Delhi
8. Baso Ram (expunged and substituted vide order dated 23.7.1997)
9. (A.) Most. Dahi, wife of Baso Ram
8. (B.) Ramdeo Ram, son of Baso Ram
8.(C) Ramashish Ram, son of Baso Ram
All 8 (A)to 8(C) are residents of Village Mangrauni, P.S. Rajnagar,
District Madhubani
9. Ramashish Ram
10. Ramdeo Ram, both 9 and 10 are sons of Baso Ram
11. Jhotail Ram son of Basudeo Ram
12. Most. Rabia wife of late Ram Swaroom Ram
13. Most. Rewani, wife of late Lakhmi Ram
14. Modisan Sadai, son of Sri Sukan Sdai
15. Shobhit Sadai, son of Phochai Sadai
16. Harun Sadai,
17. Kailu Sadai, son of Sri Ramphal Sadai
18. Saryug Sadai, son of Sri Manchit Sadai
19. Yogendra Sadai, son of Sube Sadai
20. Domu Sadai, son of Saini Sadai
21. Saudagar Sadai ( expunged and substituted vide order dated 23.7.1997)
2 Patna High Court CWJC No.1825 of 1993 (25) dt.09-07-2013
2/4
21. (A) Most. Murli, wife of Saudagar Sadai
21. (B) Gonu Sadai
21.C) Hamki Sadai, 19 (B) and 19(C ), are minor sons of Saudagar Sadai
22. Bauku Sadai, son of Sri Rghnu Sadai
23. Chande Sadai, son of Sri Bauku Sadai
24. Bhulla Sadai, son of Sri Jitan sadai, all at present residents of Vilalge
Mangrouni, P.S.Rajnagar, District Madhubani.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
25 09-07-2013Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
None appears on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries. The private respondents are also not represented by their counsel despite valid service of notice.
In the present proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Basgit (homestead) Parcha dated 23.7.1992 issued by the respondent Circle Officer, Rajnagar (District Madhubani) in favour of respondent Nos.8 to 24. Though the writ petition is voluminous, yet the petitioner has not brought on record the order sheet of Basgit (homestead) Parcha case initiated by the respondent Circle Officer, Rajnagar under the provisions of The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 ( in short 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.1825 of 1993 (25) dt.09-07-2013 3/4 'Act'). He has also not brought on record the impugned Basgit Parcha dated 23.7.1992 issued in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to
24. In absence of the order sheet of Basgit (homestead) Parcha case initiated by the respondent Circle Officer, Rajnagar and in absence of the impugned Basgit Parcha issued in favour of the respondent Nos.8 to 24, the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present proceeding cannot be properly and effectively decided. Though, the writ petition was filed as far back as on 22.2.1993 and since than more than 20 years have elapsed, yet the petitioner has not taken pains for obtaining certified copy of the entire order sheet of Basgit Parcha case or impugned Basgit Parcha. Furthermore, this Court finds that any order passed by the respondent Circle Officer, the Collector under the meaning of the Act, is subject to supervisory powers of the District Collector in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner has also not exhausted his statutory alternative remedy available to him in terms of Section 21 of the Act. On that ground also, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to approach the respondent District Collector, Madhubani for appropriate reliefs admissible to the petitioner under the law.
Permission is accorded.
The application stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.
If any petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner with all relevant documents including the order sheet of Basgit (homestead) Parcha case as also the impugned Basgit Parcha 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.1825 of 1993 (25) dt.09-07-2013 4/4 within a period of six weeks from today and if it is found that the petition has become time barred and if any petition for condonation of such delay is filed, then the District Collector, Madhubani, shall take into consideration that under a bona fide legal advice the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 22.2.1993 and that remained pending till date, and only thereafter he shall decide the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner in accordance with law.
The interim order/protection dated 16.3.1993 passed by a Bench of this Court stands vacated.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Kanth/-