THAKUR AMLESHWAR DAYAL SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an outgoing intermediary within the meaning of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act. and the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951, hereinafter called the Rules. He was a proprietor of the estate known as Lokeya-Narayanpur, consisting of several tauzies including tauzi No. 89 of village Pathara in the district of Palamau. THE petitioner's estate vested in the State of Bihar under the Act in the vear 1955. In village Pathara alias Narsinghpore, tauzi No. 89, a Hat is being held on every Sunday on plot No. 1090 of Khata No. 191 and plot No. 1220 of Khata No. 147. Petitioner's grievance is that no notice was sent to him in the matter of settlement of the Hat by the State of Bihar giving him the first option of taking settlement in accordance with the Act and the Rules. After having waited for sometime he filed an application before the Circle Officer, Chainpore. respondent No. 5. on 1-11-1968 requesting him to settle the said Hat with the petitioner. A copy of this application is Annexure 1 to the writ application, wherein he stated that the petitioner was ready to forgo compensation and execute a lease in Form P (3), appended to the Rules, for a period of fifteen years or for such period as may be considered proper. In spite of the application filed by the petitioner, the Additional Collector, Palamau, respondent, No. 3. proposed to settle the Hat by public auction on 22-1-1969. THEreupon the petitioner filed an application on 16-1-1969, a copy of which is Annexure 2 and the original of which application is Annexure 3, before respondent No. 3 insisting for giving preference in the matter of settlement of the Hat to the petitioner in accordance with the Act and the Rules. But respondent No. 3 insisted on holding the public auction on 22-1-1969 and did not accept the petitioner's application (Annexure 3). Respondent No. 3 actually held auction and settled the Hat with one Baijnath Sah for Rs. 5,300/-. Against the order of the Additional Collector the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau. respondent No. 2, requesting him to settle the Hat with him. THE Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal by his order dated 29-7-1969, set aside the settlement made by public auction and remanded the case to the Additional Collector for resettling the Hat with the petitioner in the first instance. THEreupon respondent No. 3 ordered settlement of the Hat with the petitioner for a term of three years only on the reserve iama of Rs. 5,900/- per year, ignoring the offer of the petitioner under Rule 7-P of the Rules to forgo his compensation. THE petitioner was ordered to deposit Rs. 800/- in addition to Rs. 5,100/- which would be the total amount of compensation available to the petitioner for the Hat. For the first year of the settlement the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 800/-, the balance of Rs. 5,900/- after adjustment of the compensation amount of Rs. 5100/- but he was to be required to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,900/- each year for the other two settlement years as per order dated 28-4-1970, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ application. Against the order dated 28-4-1970 of the Additional Collector, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who, by his order dated 16-6-1970 (Annexure 5). dismissed the appeal, taking the view that the petitioner was liable to pay at the rate of the reserve jama fixed earlier by order dated 6-2-1970 and whatever amount was payable by the petitioner after adiustment of the compensation had to be paid. THE petitioner's stand is that he is not liable to pay any further amount for the settlement made with him for three years, i. e., 1970-71. 1971-72 and 1972-73. He further claims that the period of three years has been arbitrarily fixed in his case and it ought to have been further extended by a reasonable period UP to the maximum of fifteen years.

(2.) MR. Jaleshw_ar Prasad. learned Counsel for the petitioner, pressed the following points in support of this writ application--

(3.) THE mode of fixing reserve lama is prescribed in Rule 7-U of the Rules. Here the figure which was available to the authorities was for one year and the highest bid of Rs. 5,300/- for the following year was not accepted by them as they thought that the jama of the Hat cannot be less than Rs. 5,900. In my opinion, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the authorities were justified in fixing the reserve jama at Rs, 5,900/- in accordance with clause (ii) of Rule 7-U. It may also be added that the Deputy Commissioner in his impugned order (Annexure 5) has rightly taken the view that the Additional Collector had fixed the reserve iama at Rs. 5,900/-. by his order dated 6-2-1970. No appeal was preferred from that order. In the appeal preferred from the order dated 28-4-1970 the question of reserve jama could not be gone into as in that regard the order dated 28-4-1970 (Annexure 4) was merely refusing to review the order dated 6-2-1970 and was not appealable.