CHANDESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be Bataidar in respect of the land in dispute as mentioned in Annexure 3 of the writ case. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the learned Collector (respondent No. 2) dated the 20th of July 1982 (Annexure 2) affirming the order dated the 24th September 1977 (Annexure 1) passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent No. 3). The impugned order has been passed under Section 48-E(8) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be called as "the Act").

(2.) The petitioner filed an application under Section 48-E of the Act before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Samastipur (respondent-No. 3) claiming to be Bataidar in respect of the land in dispute which belongs to one Most. Ram Kumari Devi. The ground taken by the petitioner was that the said Most Ram Kumari Devi was disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. On receipt of this application the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur constituted a Board and referred the matter to the Board. Initially the Deputy Collector Land Reforms nominated the Anchal Adhikari, Morwa as the Chairman of the Board, but subsequently on refusal by the said Anchal Adhikari, Morwa, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent No. 3) as the Chairman of the Board and sent the matter to him After receiving the record, the Anchal Adhikari, Bilhutipur who was nominated as Chairman of the Board issued notices to the parties concerned.

(3.) From the ordersheet maintained by the Board it appears that the punches did not participate in the proceeding and on several dates the case was adjourned. On 5.11.76 the parties were directed to come to an amicable settlement of the dispute and on the next date fixed in the proceeding the Anchal Adhikari passed an order to the effect that the petitioner's claim to be a Bataidar in respect of the land in dispute was not correct and that the petitioners had taken possession of the land only with a view to frustrates ceiling proceeding against the said Most. Ram Kumari Devi. With this finding the record was transmitted to the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms to take necessary steps in the matter. Thereafter he filed a petition before the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms contending that the Anchal Adhikari had not visited the spot nor he had taken evidence of any independent witness. The petitioner filed documentary evidence in support of his claim of his being Bataidar of the land in question. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent No. 3) by his order dated 24.9.79 rejected the application and affirmed the order of the Board without going into the merits of the case and without giving his own reasons as required by Sub-section (9) of Section 48-E of the Act. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Samastipur and by his order dated the 20th July, 1982 dismissed the appeal. The learned Collector took the view that the Sada Hukumnaraa was not admissible in evidence and in the ceiling case started against the land-holder the lands have been declared surplus and the provisions of the Act could not frustrate the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. Thus, the present writ case by the petitioner before this Court.