TARINI PRASAD SHARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF BHAGALPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application, praying that an order incorporated in Annexure 6, dated the 26th March, 1969, passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, may be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential reliefs by a writ of mandamus.

(2.) The relevant facts are, that, in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1968-69, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, a proceeding had commenced under Section 53 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, by an order, dated the 20th May, 1968, had granted permission for acquisition of plot No. 290, having an area of 3 bighas 18 kathas and 5 dhurs in Mouza Dhudhani. There was an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Santal Parganas, on the 9th October, 1968. Thereafter, there was a revisional case before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and by the impugned order, dated the 26th March, 1969, the learned Commissioner of the Division has revised the order of the appellate Court, holding, that, only 1 katha of land from plot No. 290 should be acquired for the benefit of the writ petitioner of this Court and the application for acquisition of the remaining 3 bighas, 17 kathas and 5 dhurs of land must fail. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come up to this Court

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, that, in view of long possession of his client, the entire land of plot No. 290 should have been acquired and the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division is wrong. But, in view of the fact, that, Section 53 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 has been held to be void and unconstitutional in the case of Buddinath Mishra v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1970 Pat 358, no further relief can be given to the petitioner. As indicated above, the original case was started on an application under Section 53 of the Act and the section no longer exists on the statute book. Therefore, whether the petitioner was in long possession of the lands of plot No. 290 or not, the matter cannot be further investigated in this writ application. On the preliminary ground, the writ application must fail and it is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs.