Patna High Court - Orders
Shilanath Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 July, 2013
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
Patna High Court CWJC No.3489 of 2008 (4) dt.30-07-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3489 of 2008
======================================================
1. Shilanath Singh son of Late Parasnath Singh
2. Satyendra Singh @ Satyendra Kumar Singh son of Late Parasnath Singh
3. Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Tarkeshwar Nath Singh
4. Anil Kumar Singh, son of Late Tarkeshwar Nath Singh
5. Uday Kumar Singh, son of Tarkeshwar Nath Singh
6. Vikash Kumar , son of Late Shambhu Nath Singh
7. Prakash Kumar, son of Late Shambhu Nath Singh
All are residents of village-Agarpur, P.S.-Lalganj, Distt.-Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur
3. The D.C.L.R., Vaishali, Hajipur
4. The Anchaladhikari, Lalganj, Vaishali
5. Annu Shukla, wife of Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla, resident
of village-Khangaha Chak, P.S. & Anchal Lalganj, District-Vaishali.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate
Md.Najmul Hoda, Advocate
For the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. S. A. Alam, S.C.-III
Md. Shahab Khalif, A.C. to S.C.-III
For the Respondent
No. 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD
VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-07-2013Heard the parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Revision No. 40 of 2005-06 by the respondent District Collector, Vaishali, whereby and whereunder while setting aside the order dated 13.8.1999 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hajipur, in Mutation Appeal No. 31 of 1998-99, he has affirmed an ex parte order of mutation dated Patna High Court CWJC No.3489 of 2008 (4) dt.30-07-2013 2 18.11.1998/19.11.1998 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, in Mutation Case No. 718 of 1998-99.
After having heard the parties at great length and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the order of mutation was passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, by his order dated 18.11.1998/19.11.1998 (Annexure-3) but apparently without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in whose name Jamabandi was already running. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hajipur, was allowed by the order dated 13.8.1999 (Annelxure-4) but that order also appears to be an ex parte. The respondent District Collector, Vaishali, while passing the impugned revisional order could have remitted the entire matter back to the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, for deciding the claim afresh, but for reasons best known to him he has set aside the ex parte order passed by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hajipur, and has affirmed another ex parte order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, which cannot be sustained in law. This Court is of the opinion that the entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision right from the very beginning.
For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 18.11.1998/19.11.1998 (Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Case No. 718 of 1998-99 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, the order dated 13.8.1999 (Annexure-4) passed in Mutation Appeal No. 31 of 1998-99 by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hajipur, as also the impugned order dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Revision No. 40 of 2005-06 by the respondent District Collector, Vaishali, are hereby set aside Patna High Court CWJC No.3489 of 2008 (4) dt.30-07-2013 3 and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, with a direction to decide the claim of mutation afresh strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) sudip/-