Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

for the reasons recorded in that order, but this fact has completely been concealed by the writ petitioners. He further contended that, it is true that the petitioners had filed Misc.Case No.117 of 2008 before the respondent District Collector, Buxar and in that Misc. Case final order was passed on 15.11.2011 (Annexure-I to the aforesaid counter affidavit), whereby the entire matter was remitted back to the respondent Anchal Adhikari with a direction to pass fresh order. He also contended that earlier the Basgit Parcha was issued to the petitioners with respect to plot no.1145, but, on verification, it was found that they were not in possession over that plot of land, and their claim was basically with respect to the plot no.1142. According to him, in that background, the entire matter is required to be decided afresh by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, but no final order has been passed.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.5 to 7, by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondents, submits that, as per own showing of the petitioners in paragraph no.6 of the writ petition, the lands of plot no.1145 was originally belonging to one Sidhnath Pathak and he had transferred the said land to the ancestor of the respondent nos.5 to 7 way back on 19.02.1980. Yet, Patna High Court CWJC No.888 of 2009 dt.13-08-2015 when the Basgit Parcha Case was filed by the petitioners, neither the original land owner Sidhnath Pathak nor the ancestor of the respondent nos.5 to 7 were issued any show cause notice nor they were given any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, according to him, the entire action of the competent authority issuing Basgit Parcha in favour of the petitioners is not sustainable on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that since the respondent District Collector, Buxar has passed a fresh order on 15.11.2011 in Misc.Case No.117 of 2008 (Annexure-I to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2), therefore, unless and until the matter is decided afresh by the Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar there is no question of issuance of any direction for giving any protection to the petitioners with respect to the lands of plot no.1145. He next contended that so far the order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure-8 to the I.A.No.6476 of 2015) is concerned, that has been passed in violation of order and direction issued by the respondent District Collector, Buxar. Hence, it cannot be sustained in law. Furthermore, once the matter has been remitted back by the respondent District Collector to the Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar, the proceeding was required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1947 and the Rules, 1948, but that has not been done by the Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar. Therefore, it is pleaded that the aforesaid order is also not sustainable in law. Lastly, it was pointed out that though the petitioners were the Parcha holders under the provisions of the Act, 1947, but they have transferred these lands to a third person, which is contrary to the mandate of the Act, 1947. In these backgrounds, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8. After having heard the parties at length and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the entire matter is required to be re-considered and Patna High Court CWJC No.888 of 2009 dt.13-08-2015 re-decided by the Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar from the very beginning. It is true that the Basgit Parcha was issued to the petitioners in the year 1984 vide Annexure-1, but, at that time, no opportunity of hearing was given either to the original land holder or the transferee. Furthermore, the aforesaid Basgit Parcha was cancelled by the order dated 10.05.1985 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2) and that order was never challenged by the petitioners in any subsequent proceeding or before any higher authority/court. However, admittedly, the petitioners themselves filed Misc.Case No.117 of 2008 before the respondent District Collector, Buxar. Taking into consideration the entire facts, the respondent District Collector remitted the matter back to the Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar for passing a fresh order. In view of the aforesaid remand order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure-I to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2), the Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar was required to proceed afresh under the provisions of the Act, 1947 read with the Rules, 1948 after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, but that has not been done by him. Instead, on altogether different consideration, he passed an order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure-8 to the I.A.No. 6476 of 2015) and issued certain directions to the karamchari for issuance of rent receipt in favour of the petitioners. Apparently, while passing the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure-8 to the I.A.No. 6476 of 2015), he has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1947 and the Rules, 1948 and has also flouted the order dated 15.11.2011 passed in Misc.Case No.117 of 2008 (Annexure-I to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2) by the District Collector, Buxar.