BHAGWANMALLAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order dated 1-9-92 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division in Case No 88 of 1989-90 whereby and whereunder be dismissed a revision-application preferred by the petitioner as also the order dated 4-6-199' passed by the Circle Officer. Darauli in M L. Case No 1/81-82 in terms whereof the application filed by Respondent No. 6 under Section 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act wa allowed.

(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. Respondent No 6 executed usufructuary mortgage deed dated 27-5-1974 in favour of the petitioner in respect of 1 bigha 7 katbas and 11 dhoors appertaining to Plot No. 145 and 146 of kbata No. 3 The said respondent filed an application on 3-6-81 before the Anchal Adhikari Darauli under Section 12 of the Money Lenders Act and in the said proceeding, the petitioner filed an objection on 10-8 81 alleging inter-alia therein that the said application is not maintainable. By order dated 4-6-86 (Annexure-2), the Ancbal Adhikari Darauli allowed the said application The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was registered as Case No. 629 of 1982-83 and by order dated 30-6-83 the said appeal was dismissed which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. The petitioner again filed a revision-application before the Collector, being No 288/84-85/52/89-90 which was also dismissed on 22nd August, 1989 (Annexure-4). A revision application was again filed before the Commissioner, Saran Division, but the same was also dismissed by order dated 1-9-92. The petitioner has contended that the Respondent No. 6 has already sold away the mortgaged land on 22-6-1981 by reason of four registered sale deeds in favour of Banarsi Chaudhary and Randhari Chaudhary and thus he has no locus standt to file the said application.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raited a short question in support of this application. Learned Counsel submitted that from a perusal of the definition of 'Collector' as contained in Section 2 (b) and 'Anchal Adhikari' as contained in Section 2 (a) of the said Act, it would appear that the said authorities are different and in that view of the matter the application filed before the Anchal Adhikari was not maintainable. Learned Counsel in support of the aforementioned proposition relied upon a decision of this Court in 1984 PLJR 509.