Jharkhand High Court
Md. Nizamuddin vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 50
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1626 of 2014
Md. Nizamuddin, S/o Late Kudrat Mia, resident of Line Mohalla, P.O. Chatra,
P.S. & District-Chatra.
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O., P.S & District-Chatra.
3. Circle Officer, Chatra, P.O., P.S & District-Chatra.
4. Raghu Bhuiyan
5. Budhan Bhuian
Both sons of Late Bandhu Bhuia, resident of Mohalla Paradih, P.O. Chatra,
P.S. & District-Chatra.
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent-State:Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C. (L& C)-I 7/Dated: 06/02/2020 Despite valid service of notice, respondent nos. 4 & 5 have not appeared. With a view to provide one opportunity, this matter was adjourned on 13.012020 and that is how this matter is listed today. Today, again nobody is appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 & 5.
Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vineet Prakash learned A.C. to S.C. (L& C)-I for the respondent- State.
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the District Collector, Chatra in Miscellaneous Case No. 65/2004, whereby the respondent no. 2 in exercise of power under section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Home Stead Tenancy Act, 1947 has dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No. 65/2004 filed by the petitioner and also refused to interfere with Basgit Parcha Case No. 24/1998-99 and 22/1998-99 whereby Basgit Parcha was issued in the name of respondent nos. 4 & 5 by the Circle Officer, Chatra for 3 acres of land each out of Khata No. 16/143, Plot No. 526 of village Paradih.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 Halka Karamchari through Circle Inspector made proposal to the Circle Officer, Chatra for issuance of 'Basgit Parcha' in the name of Raghu Bhuian, Bhudhan Bhuian both sons of Bandhu Bhuian (respondent nos. 5 & 6). The Circle Officer, Chatra instituted Basgit Parcha Case No. 24/1998-99 with respect to Raghu Bhuian and directed to issue notice to the landlord and also publish Aam Istahar. ON 17.08.1998 Aam Istahar was received and one Koleshwar Dayal made an objection. The Circle Officer, Chatra posted the matter on 14.10.1998 for making enquiry. The Circle Officer, Chatra in terms of order dated 14.10.1998 examined the objection raised by Koleshwar Dayal wherein he has stated that Badlain was made with respect to land in question and house standing on the same with one Kudrat Mian, father of the petitioner. The said house was given to one Bandhu Bhuian, father of respondent no. 4 who wants to grab. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed objection before the Circle Officer for grant of Basgit Parcha which was allowed in favour of respondent nos. 4 & 5. Pursuant to that the petitioner filed revision before the Circle Officer, Chatra under Section 21 of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act which was rejected against the petitioner. Referring to Rule 5 of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Rule has not been followed in passing the impugned order.
For the sake of convenience Rule 5 Sub rule (5) of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act is being quoted here-in-below:-
"5 (5). The Collector shall prepare a record of homestead held by privileged tenant in Form G. The main record shall be maintained in the office of the Collector and a copy of the record bearing the signature and seal of the Collector shall be made over to the landlord and the privileged tenant."
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner further 3 submits that the impugned order has been passed without following the aforesaid Rule.
To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of "Maya Rani Chatterjee & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others" reported 1993 (1) PLJR 612 in which Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"16.Now I deal with the objection raised by Mr. Karan and Mr. Sanyal that this application should be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. A question would arise as to whether, in view of the patent facts, it would be desirable for this court to refuse to exercise its discretion vested in it by the Constitution on the ground of laches and/or inordinate delay. The answer must be in negative. It has also been stated by the petitioners that the original petitioner filed an application as contained in Annexure-3 before the Circle Officer, Thakurganj, on 5.2.1990 for cancelling the Parcha, which has also not been denied. Under the provisions of the Act, as they were in existence at the relevant time, the Collector was not vested with powers to cancel parchas granted exparte. With reference to Annexure C to the counter-affidavit, Mr. Sanyal placed great reliance while contending that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the impugned order. It is true that it shows that an explanation was called from the Anchal Authorities. This document, which is photocopy of certified copy of report of the Anchal Adhikari, Thakurganju, submitted pursuant to the letter of the Sub-divisional Officer, Kishanganj, being No. 92 C dated 22nd February Counter- 4 affidavit dated 18.01.1991. The petitioner in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his affidavit dated 4.4.1991, has stated some interasting facts calling it to be suspicious document. Mr. Sanyal, despite categorical direction made by order dated 12.09.1991, has not produced the certified copy of Annexure C. It is, thus, difficult to place reliance on it. Specially when no counter has been filed by Respondent no. 3 to the affidavit dated 4.4.1991. The petition (Annexure-3) cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy for obtaining reliefs by the original petitioner.
17. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that justice requires remittance of the case.
18. As the case is remitted back in regard to second submission of Mr. Pandey, liberty to the parties is granted to make their submissions/counter submissions in this regard before Respondent no.2. Parties will maintain status quo of the lands in question till adjudication by Respondent no. 2."
Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that petitioner has no locus standi and the petitioner has not produced any document before the authority and in view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In view of cumulative effect of the discussions made above and considering the Rule 5 Sub rule (5) of Bihar Privileged Persons Home Stead Tenancy Act, 1947 and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Maya Rani Chatterjee & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others (Supra), it appears that the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure of Rule 5 Sub rule (5) of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act and in that view of the matter the impugned order cannot be 5 sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to decide the revision petition afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties in terms of Rule 5 Sub rule (5) of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act and in accordance with law. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/