Patna High Court
Urmila Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 February, 2017
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1238 of 2013
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2141 of 2008
===========================================================
Urmila Devi W/O Late Hari Kishore Prasad R/O Village- Karahiya, P.S- Rajnagar,
District- Madhubani.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Madhubani, District- Madhubani.
4. The Circle Officer, Anchal- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani
5. Birendra Mahto S/O Late Awadh Mahto Resident Of Village- Karahiya, P.S-
Rajnagar, Distt- Madhubani.
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate
Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate
Mr. R.K.Verma, Advocate
Mr. Sheopal Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, AC to PAAG-1
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 07-02-2017 I.A. No. 3224 of 2016 is a petition for substitution, because private respondent No. 5 died on 05.02.2016 and the legal heirs are required to be brought on record. The details of the legal heirs are provided in the supplementary affidavit filed in the Interlocutory Application. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 4.
The substitution petition is allowed. Let the names of legal heirs indicated in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit to the Interlocutory Application be brought on record. Patna High Court LPA No.1238 of 2013 dt.07-02-2017 2/3 The learned single Judge while deciding the writ application has chosen to dismiss the writ application on 12.08.2013, primarily on the ground that the order dated 07.12.2007/17.12.2007 passed by the District Collector, Madhubani, setting aside the issuance of basgit parcha issued in the year 1984 to be beyond his competence and authority. It is this order, which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.
The short facts are that basgit parcha was issued way back in the year 1984 in favour of the father of the private respondents. After more than 22 years, against the grant of the parcha a proceeding was initiated purportedly under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, seeking quashing of the basgit parcha or its annulment in Basgit Parcha Case No.8 of 2006-07.
The power under Section 21 of the Act came into vogue in the year 1989 when an amendment was brought about in the statute book. The learned single Judge has held that these provisions, vesting the power in Collector, was prospective. The basgit parcha was already issued in the year 1984, therefore, he could not have gone into the issue or a matter which already stood settled 22 years ago.
Besides the question of law, the Bench is also of the Patna High Court LPA No.1238 of 2013 dt.07-02-2017 3/3 opinion that the jurisdiction of the District Collector was invoked because obviously the present appellant was looking forward for some favourable order, which did accrue in his favour. It could be the reason, otherwise a settlement of 1984 would not have been challenged in the year 2007.
The dismissal of the appeal or the writ application by the learned single Judge, however, may not come in the way of invoking the jurisdiction of other forums, which may be available to the appellant, but no illegality has been committed by the learned single Judge by interfering with an otherwise illegal order, which was Annexure-3 to the writ application.
The appeal has not merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 08.02.2017 Transmission N/A Date