Patna High Court - Orders
Chandra Shekhar Jha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 August, 2015
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9296 of 2010
======================================================
Chandra Shekhar Jha S/O Late Jagdish Jha R/O Vill.- Sukhsana, P.O.-
Bhatottar Chakla, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District - Purnea
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Revenue & Land Reforms, Old
Secretariat Building, Harding Road, Patna-800001
2. The Collector, Purnia
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Barahara Kothi, P.S. Barhara Kothi, Distt.- Purnia
4. Jeewan Jha S/O Sri Sahdeo Jha, R/O Vill.- Sukhsana, P.O.- Bhatottar
Chakla, P.S. Barhara Kothi, Distt.- Purnia
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Roy, Advocate
Mr. Rabindra Nath Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Abbas Haider, SC 16
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, AC to SC 16
For the Respondent No. 4 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
------------
8 21-08-2015Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Despite valid service of notice, respondent no.4 has not entered appearance.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 06.10.2001 (Annexure-1) passed in Basgit Parcha Case No. 03 of 2001-2002 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barhara Kothi, whereby basgit parcha has been directed to be issued in favour of the respondent no.4 with respect to plots of land bearing Khesara no. 2536 area 2 decimals and Khesara no. 2538 area 6 decimals, total area being 8 decimals. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2010 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent District Collector, Purnea whereby Case No. RR 98 of 2003 filed on behalf of the petitioner Under Section 21 of the Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.9296 of 2010 (8) dt.21-08-2015 2/3 Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (in short, "Act, 1947") has been dismissed by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
3. While assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 06.10.2001 (Annexure-1), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that while passing the aforesaid final order the procedures prescribed under Rule 5 of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 (in shot, "the Rules, 1948") have not been complied with. Therefore, on that ground alone, besides others, the original order is not sustainable in law. According to him, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, approached the District Collector, Purnea for redressal of his valid grievances under Section 21 of the Act, 1947, but the respondent District Collector without considering the points raised on behalf of the petitioner has mechanically dismissed the aforesaid Case No. RR 98 of 2003 by a non-speaking and cryptic order. Therefore, it is pleaded that the impugned orders passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari as also the respondent District Collector are not sustainable in law.
4. Learned Standing Counsel 16, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned orders. However, even by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 he has not been able to satisfy the court that the procedure laid down under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1948 was strictly complied with.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration Patna High Court CWJC No.9296 of 2010 (8) dt.21-08-2015 3/3 and fresh decision from the stage of original authority i.e. the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barhara Kothi, as apparently the procedures prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1948 have not been complied with, which is evident from the ordersheet of basagit parcha case, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The order passed by the respondent District Collector, Purnea is ex-facie cryptic and non-speaking one and cannot be sustained on that ground alone.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 06.10.2001 (Annexure-1) passed in Basgit Parchas Case No. 03 of 2001-2002 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barhara Kothi as also the impugned order dated 30.01.2010 (Annexure-2) passed in Case No.RR 98 of 2003 by the respondent District Collector, Purnea are hereby set aside and quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Anchal Adhikari with a direction to decide the claim of respondent no.4 afresh in accordance with law and by complying the provisions of Rule 5 of Rules, 1948. Before the respondent Anchal Adhikari, the parties shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts and law which may be available to them.
7. Till the matter is finally decided afresh by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, the parties shall maintain status quo, as obtaining today, over the lands in question.
8. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/-
U