Patna High Court - Orders
Kedar Nath Choudhary & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 April, 2013
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha, Shivaji Pandey
Patna High Court LPA No.1841 of 2010 (13) dt.02-04-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1841 of 2010
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3499 of 2003
======================================================
1. Kedar Nath Choudhary S/O Late Bawan Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha,
P.S.- Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
2. Raj Kishore Choudhary S/O Late Bawan Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha,
P.S.- Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
3. Ram Kishore Choudhary S/O Late Bawan Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha,
P.S.- Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Additional Member Of Board Of Revenue Bihar, Patna
3. Kuldip Choudhary S/O Late Ghuran Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha, P.S.-
Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
4. Jai Narain Choudhary S/O Late Ghuran Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha,
P.S.- Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
5. Sachidanand Choudhary S/O Late Sukhdeo Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha,
P.S.- Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
6. Vijay Krishna Choudhary S/O Late Sukhdeo Choudhary R/O Vill.-
Fateha, P.S.- Bachhwara, Distt.- Begusarai
7. Shilwat Choudhary S/O Late Ram Prakash Choudhary R/O Vill.- Fateha,
P.S.- Bachhwara, Town & Distt.- Begusarai
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22
For the Private Respondent : Mr. Amitabh Sohan
Mr. Pallavi Singh.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
13 02-04-2013We have heard counsel for the Appellants, the State and for the private respondents.
The present Appeal arises from order dated 30.08.2010 allowing C.W.J.C. No. 3499 of 2003. Patna High Court LPA No.1841 of 2010 (13) dt.02-04-2013 2
The Appellants filed a preemption application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the D.C.L.R., Teghra who rejected the same by order dated 28.02.1996 opining that the land was of residential nature. The revision application filed before the Board of Revenue was also rejected on 28.06.2002 as barred by limitation by a considered order. On 18.07.2002 the Appellants filed an application for recall of the order. The Additional Member Board of Revenue assumed jurisdiction in a disposed matter and passed a fresh order on 21.02.2003 allowing the claim for preemption on merits. The latter order does refer his own earlier order dated 28.06.2002, let alone recall the order, if the Additional Member Board of Revenue had the jurisdiction to do so. The learned Single Judge held that the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the Appellants invited our attention to Section 32(3) of the Act which reads as follows:
`` 32(3) The Board of Revenue may of its motion or on an application made to it, call for from the Collector any document or record in connection with any enquiry conducted by the Collector or may direct the Collector to institute, for the purposes of this section, an enquiry and to submit his findings to the Board"
It was submitted that if the power of suo motu Patna High Court LPA No.1841 of 2010 (13) dt.02-04-2013 3 revision vested in the Additional Member Board of Revenue, the order dated 21.02.2003 cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. An alternate submission was made that the writ application of private respondents should not have been entertained in view of the alternate remedy before the Tribunal, which had become functional.
The learned Single Judge held that Additional Member Board of Revenue had become functus officio after the order dated 28.06.2002. We agree with the conclusion that if the revision was dismissed on grounds of limitation it amounts to a final order also. Moreover, we find that under Section 32(1) there is no provision for condoning the delay. On going through the order dated 21.02.2003, we find it extremely difficult to appreciate the manner in which the Additional Member Board of Revenue has exercised his statutory quasi judicial powers. If the Board of Revenue had declined to condone delay under Section 32(1) of the Act, the question of his invoking suo motu powers subsequently under Section 32(5) in the same matter is impermissible and arbitrary without jurisdiction. What surprises us is the manner in which the Additional Member Board of Revenue chose to exclude any reference to his own order dated 28.06.2002 while passing the fresh order assuming jurisdiction on Patna High Court LPA No.1841 of 2010 (13) dt.02-04-2013 4 merits on an application where he had become functus officio. The only conclusion to our mind is that the Additional Member Board of Revenue obviously found it difficult to assume jurisdiction in accordance with law well aware of his inability to do so. To circumvent the same, he preferred to ignore his own earlier order. It is difficult for us to approve of the conduct of the Additional Member Board of Revenue for the manner in which he has exercised his quasi judicial powers.
Our query why objections were not raised by the Appellants before the writ court with regard to alternative remedy was answered that it should have been done so. We are not persuaded to accept that argument for the additional reason that it would encourage litigants to reserve grounds to raise at subsequent stages of litigation and thereby prolong litigation unnecessarily.
The order dated 28.06.2002 shall hold the field so long as it is not interfered with by a Superior Court of forum, but in accordance with law.
The Appeal is dismissed.
(Navin Sinha, J.)
Md. Ibrarul/- (Shivaji Pandey, J.)