Kanchan Bala Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 7 February, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Kanchan Bala Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 7 February, 2017

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W. P. (C) No. 4986 of 2014
                                           ...
                Kanchan Bala Devi                                 ...   ...Petitioner
                                    -V e r s u s-
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
                3. Circle Officer, Hunterganj, Chatra
                4. Rajendra Prasad Sahu                           ...     ...Respondents

        CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                  ...
            For the Petitioner    : - Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
            For the Resp.-State    :- M/s Atanu Banerjee, GA &
                                         Kaustav Panda, JC to GA
            For the Private Resp. :- Mr. Muni Lal Yadav, Adv.
                                  ...

05/07.02.2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the private respondent.

Petitioner claims herself to be owner of a piece of land comprising 16 and ½ decimals of Plot No. 440, Khata No. 116, Village-Gerua, P.S. Hunterganj, District-Charga as per the final decree passed in Partition Suit No. 72 of 1951 by the Sub-Judge, Ranchi. She, however, was surprised to know that 6 and ½ decimals of land out of the same plot has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 4 by the Circle Officer, Hunterganj, Chatra, respondent no. 3 vide order dated 31.07.2007 in Case No. 9/2007- 08 under the provision of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the proceeding of the Case No. 9/2007-08, Annexure-3 and submits that after issuing notice on 25.07.2007 within 7 days thereafter on 31.07.2007, Basgit Parcha has been issued in favour of the private respondent in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and in teeth of the provisions of the Act of 1947 and Rules framed therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra in Mis. Case No. 115/15 initiated by the respondent no. 4 himself has, on the report of the Circle Officer, Hunterganj recommended cancellation of Basgit Parcha of 6 and ½ decimals of the same land vide order dated 25.03.2015. A photocopy thereof has also been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit in support of the impugned order. It is stated that Basgit Parcha has been issued in the name of the private respondent, who is very poor person and landless and after enquiry through the Anchal Amin, Revenue Karamchari and Circle Inspector, notices were also issued upon the petitioner, but he did not make any objection thereto.

Respondent no. 4 is also represented through his counsel, but has not filed any counter affidavit. He also supports the impugned order.

I have considered the submissions of the rival parties in the light of the relevant material facts noticed above. Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 empowers the Collector of the District to call for and examine records on his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority for satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Collector under the Act and in such a case, he may after allowing the concerned parties opportunity of being heard, direct that case or proceedings to be reopened and dispose it of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Prima facie on perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-3, it appears that order of issuance of Basgit Parcha has been passed after notice of only seven days on 25.07.2007. Counter affidavit of the respondent also do not contain any document to show, service of notice on the raiyats of village or to the petitioner, which is required in terms of Rule 5 of Act. It further appears that Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra in proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 4 himself has, on report of the Circle Officer, recommended the cancellation of the Basgit Parcha issued in favour of the private respondent earlier.

In such circumstances, since the question involves appreciation of relevant records on the point of service of notice and regularity of the proceeding as well, this Court is of the opinion that Deputy Commissioner, Chatra should take a decision in the matter after opportunity to the petitioner as well as private respondent and other affected parties, if any, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court