KUSHESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Kusheshwar Singh, has made a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding respondents 1 and 2 to make settlement of the Ghat in question with the petitioner and fur an injunction restraining them from making any such settlement in favour of respondent No. 3 Ramanand Anarya.

(2.) The facts in this case are not very much in dispute. There is a Ghat named Ganjpathara to Chechar Khalsa on the river Gandak near Hajipur, of which the petitioner had taken settlement for three years from 1970-71 to 1972-73 on an annual jama of Rs. 25,205/-. The term of settlement in favour of the petitioner being due to expire on the 31st of March, 1973, in February. 1973 the Collector of Vaishali, respondent No. 2, invited the public by a public notice to participate in a public auction to be held on 26th February, 1973, for settlement of the said Ghat for the year 1973-74. A copy of the public notice has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner as Annexure 4 to this petition, copy of which had been forwarded to each of many officers mentioned at the bottom of the notice, including the Commissioner of Tirhut Division. Copies of that notice were also forwarded, presumably, to persons who had already, somehow or offer, showed willingness to participate in any such public auction. The list of such persons shows the name of the petitioner as well as that of respondent No. 3, Ramanand Anarya. The public auction, for one reason or the other, could not be held on 26th February, 1973, as originally scheduler, and was postponed to 6th March, 1973. According to the case of the petitioner, many persons participated at the public auction and respondent No. 3 was also present at the auction, but ultimately the petitioner's bid having been found to be the highest namely, Rs. 26,000/- was accepted by the Collector, respondent No. 2 and in pursuance of the provisions contained in the public notice respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to deposit half of the money plus the security money at the rate of 2 per cent at the knock of the hammer or soon thereafter. The petitioner deposited Rs. 13,000/- being half of the auction money offered with the security money at the rate of 2 per cent. On 2nd April, 1973, the Collector, Respondent No. 2, issued a provisional Parwana of settlement to the petitioner and the petitioner was put in possession over the Ghat as settlee. Thenceforth the petitioner continued to realise the tolls as usual. It also appears from the statement made in paragraph 12 of the petition read with Annexure 2 to the writ application that the petitioner had invested huge sums of money over the improvement, running and management of the Ghat and also in making temporary constructions for keeping the persons employed by him. So far, there does not seem to be any dispute between the parties.

(3.) On the 9th of April, 1973, the petitioner learnt that the Ghat was being thought to be settled or had been decided by the authorities concerned to be settled with respondent No. 3. On further query, the petitioner found out that instruction had been issued by the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, in their Revenue Department, that the Ghat in question should be settled with respondent No. 3, Ramanand Anarya, who claimed himself to be the Secretary of a Union called the All India Labourers Co-operative Union. On 12th April, 1973, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, respondent No. 2, requesting him to inform about the actual state of affairs or developments which had taken place in the matter of settlement. And, in that application, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ application, it was asserted in paragraph 10 that, if any fresh bid were going to he held, the petitioner was even prepared to participate at such a bid and he also gave an assurance that he would offer the highest amount at any bid, if re-held. The petitioner, of course, in that application protested against any justification for holding such a re-bid, his highest bid having been accepted, a provisional Parwana having already been granted to him on representation of the revenue authorities half the bid money along with 2 per cent security having already been deposited by him and huge expenses, as already indicated, having already been incurred for the purpose. After several pieces of correspondence, the petitioner ultimately found that orders have been issued by the Revenue Department of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, for the settlement of the Ghat in question in favour of respondent No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 26,500/-.