LAWS(SC)-2003-7-134

RAM NARAIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 22, 2003
RAM NARAIN SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 4 to 45 herein filed a joint application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (for short 'D.C.L.R.') u/s 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 [for short, 'the Act'] claiming to be the Bataidars over several plots with cultivating possession since twenty five years and that the Appellant-landlord was threatening to dispossess them from their respective lands. The D.C.L.R., after examining the application in the light of the material placed before him, found that there was no prima facie case to initiate the proceedings u/s 48E of the Act and in that view of the matter, he dismissed the application. Respondents 4 to 45, aggrieved by the said order, approached the Collector by filing an appeal. The Collector found that the D.C.L.R. passed the order without any local inspection and without any recommendation of the Advisory Board and in that view, remitted the case to the D.C.L.R. for hearing afresh and passing orders in accordance with law. The Appellant-landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order passed by the Collector. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Collector as well as the D.C.L.R. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appeal filed by Respondents 4 to 45 was not maintainable, but at the same time, he found that the order passed by the D.C.L.R. was equally bad. The writ appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the landlord.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in setting aside the original order passed by the D.C.L.R. without examining its correctness on merits; the D.C.L.R. only considered prima facie as to whether the proceedings should be initiated u/s 48E of the Act or not; it was not that he adjudicated on going deep into the merits of the contentions of the parties.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondents 4 to 45 urged that the D.C.L.R. exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order dismissing the application filed by the said Respondents; as can be seen from the order of the D.C.L.R. that he has considered the respective contentions of the parties after issuing notice and after hearing them, that too, going deep into the matter in appreciating the evidence as if he was deciding the main dispute finally. According to the learned Counsel, the High Court was justified in holding that the order passed by the D.C.L.R. was not valid and the Division Bench of the High Court rightly confirmed the said order.