BASO MAHTO Vs. HARI MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the facts are not clearly stated in the writ application, but, at the time of the hearing, on the basis of the statements in the writ application, the supplementary affidavit and the counter-affidavit and the annexures, the following facts emerged.

(2.) Shree Baso Mahto, who is the petitioner in this writ application, is the brother of Shree Hari Mahto, Respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 is the wife of Respondent No. 1. The family possessed of certain lands. The record of rights in respect of those lands was being prepared as per Section 8 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act XXII of 1956 -- hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the draft record of rights, which was prepared by the Revenue Officer under Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, land comprised in three plots, bearing Nos. 1071, 1340 and 1620, measuring 0.42 acre was entered in the name of Hari Mahto. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 103-A (1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act The Consolidation Officer, who was acting as the Revenue Officer preparing the draft record of rights, allowed the objection by his order dated the 2nd August, 1964 (a copy of which is Annexure '2' to the writ application). Respondent No. 1 went up in appeal to the Addl. Collector of Patna, but the Additional Collector, finding that the appeal directly could not be taken to him from the order of the Revenue Officer, directed the matter to go to the specially empowered Revenue Officer, under subsection (3) of Section 103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act. By a notification dated the 15th June, 1964 (a copy of which is Annexure '7' to the writ application) the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, was specially empowered to be the Revenue Officer for the purpose of Sub-section (3) of Section 103-A. The order of the Additional Collector, transferring the case to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, is dated the 10th September, 1964 (Annexure '8'). The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, allowed the appeal, which, in effect, was allowing the revision under Section 103-A (3), by his order dated the 15th October, 1965 (Annexure '6'). From this order, the matter was taken by the petitioner to the Additional Collector in appeal under Sub-section (4) of Section 103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, as it stood at the relevant time. The Additional Collector was the prescribed appellate authority by a notification dated the 26th August, 1964 (Annexure '4'). By his order dated the 8th October, 1969, (Annexure '5'), the Additional Collector allowed the appeal. Respondent No. 1 took up the matter in further appeal to the Commissioner of the Patna Division, but the Commissioner, by his order dated the 25th August, 1970 (Annexure '9'), held that the appeal before him was not maintainable. Thereafter, Respon dent No. 1 invoked the State Government's power under Section 35 of the Act. The Additional Secretary of the State Government by his order dated the 24th October, 1970 (Annexure '10'), has interfered with the order of the Additional Collector and set it aside. The petitioner has come up to this Court for the quashing of Annexure '10'.

(3.) In our opinion, in a matter like this, the State Government had no authority to call for and examine the records of the Additional Collector or the Revenue Officer in exercise of its power under Section 35 of the Act. The preparation of the record of rights is a preparation under Section 8 of the Act, but that section refers to the preparation of the record of rights in accordance With Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, The order of the Revenue Officer or the Additional Collector under the various sub-sections of Section 103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act cannot be an order under the Act to enable the State Government to interfere with it. The proviso to Section 8 of the Act provides--