RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays to quash an order dated 7-8-1991 passed by Shri Panchan Lal, the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar (Respondent No. 3) in Revision Case No. 36/90 (as contained in Annexure-4) as also letter No. 258, dated 30-8-1991 of the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 5) (as contained in Annexure-7). Through a supplementary petition certain further reliefs including quashing of a further order dated 1-6-1992 passed by Respondent No. 1 in same revision case, (as contained in Annexure-12) has been prayed for.

(2.) THE relevant facts for purpose of disposal of this writ application are in a narrow compass. It appears that a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was initiated against the petitioner for determining his ceiling area by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 6). A draft statement under Section 10 of the Act was also passed inviting objections thereby (sic). THE petitioner filed his objection under Section 10(3) of the Act stating, inter alia, therein that on the appointed day, on the enquiry reports, he was entitled to hold Class IV lands for two units and that illegally some lands are being treated as his benami. By an order dated 15-1-1990 (as contained in Annexure-1), the proceeding was closed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms after accepting the objections of the petitioner. THE Collector, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 4) by his order dated 23-3-1990 (as contained in Annexure-2) however, did not accept the aformentioned order and directed acquisition of 97 acres of land under Section 15(1) of the Act. THE petitioner moved Board of Revenue against the aforementioned order of the Collector, Darbhanga in Revision No. 36 of 1990. THE revision application was admitted on 2-7-1990 observing to the effect that there are apparently some factual errors and that principles of natural justice have not been satisfied and the manner in which the learned Collector has arrived at his own conclusion raises relevant questions of law. THE lower court records were called for. An order of status quo was also passed. Revision application was heard on several dates and orders were reserved on 11-12-1990. Mr. Ghosh, the then Additional Member, Board of Revenue, who had passed the aforesaid order, however, was transferred and could not pass final orders. THE revision application was transferred to Respondent No. 3, who by his order dated 1-7-1991, fixed 7-8-1991 for re-hearing directing the parties to be informed accordingly. An information was sent to the learned Counsel for the petitioner by the office of the Board of Revenue, who, however, intimated that the files have been taken away by the petitioner and thus he be informed. From the records of the case produced before us it appears that a registered letter, without any acknowledgement due, bearing No. 5266 was despatched to the petitioner Ram Chandra Choudhary on 6-7-1991. THE revision application was placed on 7-8-1991. On 7-8-91 the petitioner was absent. A prayer was made by the learned Counsel for the State for withdrawing the order of status quo passed on 2-7-1990. Respondent No. 3 vacated the order of status quo by order dated 7-8-1991 directing to put up the records on 8-10-1991. On 12-8-91 i.e., only about five days thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 3 for recalling the order dated 7-8-1991 stating, inter alia, therein that the petitioner was not served with any notice fixing re-hearing of the case on 7-8-1991 ; that on 7-8-1991 when his learned Counsel came to appear before Respondent No. 3, he was informed by the Peshkar that the case has already been adjourned to 8-10-1991 for final hearing but when learned Counsel saw the record, after facing of the court, he was surprised to find that the order of status quo has been vacated without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner ; that the status quo order was passed in consonance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and in the light of the admitted position of gross illegality and irregularities committed in the impugned order and to avoid the multiplication of litigation in future : that no petition for vacating the order of status quo was ever filed by the State of Bihar nor was any such petition served on his learned Counsel: that there was no laches or delay on the part of the petitioner in any way and as such he should not be allowed to have an irreparable loss and great injury for the fault which has not been committed by him and that for the ends of substantial justice, the order dated 7-8-1991 be rescinded. This petition was heard by Respondent No. 3 but instead of passing any order on the said petition, he merely directed it to be put up on the date fixed i.e., on 8-10 1991. On 8-10-1991 learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State of Bihar both were heard and the case was adjourned to 11-11-1991 at the request of the latter. Even on that day Respondent No. 3 did not pass any order on the prayer made by the petitioner for rescinding the order vacating the status quo. THE petitioner moved this Court by filing this writ application on 26-9-1991. On 11-11-1991 this writ application was placed for admission before a Bench of this Court which passed the following orders after hearing the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate: Let notices issue to the Respondents to show cause why this writ application be not admitted and if possible disposed of at the admission stage itself. THE petitioner is directed to serve notice on the Respondents through the office of the Advocate General, Bihar within ten days, failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Pending disposal of this writ application, no action shall be taken pursuant to the order dated 7-8-1991 (Annexure-4) and the order dated 30-8-1991 (Annexure-7). THE pendency of this application will not preclude the Member, Board of Revenue from proceeding with the hearing of the matter. B.P. Singh R.N. Prasad. Surprisingly on 11-11-1991, the day on which this Court passed the aforementioned order, the Sectional Officer of the Board of Revenue, who had no authority under the Act and/or the rules framed thereunder, passed an order on the records to the effect that Respondent No. 3 is otherwise busy and the case is, therefore, adjourned to 17-12-1991. We find that on 17-12-1991 yet another order was passed by the Sectional Officer stating that due to strike, this case could not be taken up today and, therefore, the case is adjourned to 3-3-1992. On 3-3-1992 Respondent No. 3 passed an order directing the case to be put upon 1-6-1992 without stating the reasons for adjournment. On 1-6-1992 the petitioner was not present ; neither any petition for time was filed. Learned Counsel for the State, however, was present and prayed that the petitioner be ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 300 to the State to which Respondent No. 3 readily acceded and directed the petitioner to pay such cost adjourning the case to 8-7-1992.

(3.) THIS petition was passed on 30-6-1992 before us since the allegation made against Respondent No. 3 was serious, taking into account the further fact that no show cause has been filed by him or any other respondents, pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 11-11-1991 of this Court (supra). Respondent No. 3 was directed, to be present in this Court on 6-7-1992 along with his show cause, if any. THIS Court also directed its office to hand over a copy of the order dated 30-6-1992 to the learned Advocate General for its communication to Respondent No. 3. Till 6-7-1992, however, no show cause was filed by the Respondents including Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, however, presented himself personally in Court and requested through the learned Advocate General for granting, one more indulgence. The court acceded to the request adjourning the case to 16-7-1992.