SHIV LOCHAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner, Shiv Lochan Jha, has prayed for quashing an order contained in the letter of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Revenue and Land Reforms Department dated the 20th Jan., 1981, directing that the settlement of the Makhana-cum-fishery rights of the tanks of Manigachi Anchal, for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, be settled in favour of respondent No. 7, for an annual Zama of Rs. 7,000 each year (commencing from the 1st Oct. and ending on the 30th Sept. every year). The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Commissioner of Darbhanga Division, dated the 17th March, 1981 (Annexure 6), by which he refused to interfere with the said order of the Government and observed that the Court of the Commissioner was not the forum where the petitioner should have gone for the cancellation of the impugned order.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that for the year 1980-81' (1st Oct. 1980 to the 30th Sept. 1981), an open bid was held by the Block Development Officer cum Anchal Adhikari, for settlement of the Makhana cum fishery rights in five tanks of Manigachi Anchal, on the 10th Sept. 1980, at which the petitioner was the highest bidder, having offered Rs. 6,000 per year. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rupees 3,000 being half of the bid amount, as directed by the Anchal Adhikari, on the same day and the Anchal Adhikari referred the matter to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga, for approval. On the 16th Sept., 1980, respondent No. 7 filed a petition before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Darbhanga, stating that he was prepared to offer Rs. 7,000 per year, and that either the said rights be settled with him or a fresh bid should be held. On this the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (respondent No. 5), directed by an order dated the 20th Sept., 1980, that if respondent No. 7 had offered Rs. 9,000, i.e. 50 per cent more than the bid amount, as required by the Government instructions, then he could have considered the question of directing a fresh bid. Respondent No. 7 was informed accordingly. In spite of notice, when respondent No. 7 did not comply with the aforesaid order, on the 6/7th Oct., 1980 the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms referred the matter to the Additional Collector for approval, as the amount of the bid was more than Rs. 5,000.

(3.) It seems, in the meantime, respondent No. 7 moved the State Government in the Revenue Department, and on the 7th Oct. 1980, obtained an order for settlement of the Shairat in question in his favour for three years, i. e., 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, at an annual Zama of Rs. 5,100/- only. When the file was placed before the Collector of Darbhanga, by a letter dated the 28th Nov. 1980, he pointed out to the State Government that Respondent No. 7 had himself offered Rs. 7,000/- per year and that, if the settlement could be made at Rs. 5,100/- only, as directed, there would be a loss of Rs. 1,900/- per year. On receipt of the aforesaid letter of the Collector, it seems that the State Government, by the impugned order, contained in the letter of the Joint Secretary, dated the 20th Jan. 1981 (Annexure '5'), cancelled its previous order dated the 7th Oct. 1980, and directed that the settlement should be made with Respondent No. 7 for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 at the annual Zama of Rs. 7,000/- only, perhaps, on the footing that the year 1979-80 had already expired on the 30th Sept. 1980.