AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents not harass the petitioner by demanding Commercial Rent in respect of the raiyati land of the petitioner pertaining to Khata No. 413 Plot no. 1953 measuring an area of 2 katha which was purchased in the name of Shanti Devi since deceased. The petitioners case is that he is the son of Surendra Narayan Singh alias Rupa Singh and grand son of Late Triveni Singh. The land in question was purchased in the name of mother of the petitioner Shanti Devi on 11.4.1956 through registered sale deed no. 1566. Shanti Devi died, the petitioner being the legal heir of Shanti Devi has become the land holder. Since the date of purchase rent was being paid regularly till 2.4.2003 and the rent receipts are being granted by the State. Recently the Anchal Adhikari of Mohiuddin Nagar approached the petitioner and served with a notice dated 9.2.2004 showing dues of Rs. 41,250/ - which is the commercial rent fixed in respect of the land of Khata No. 413, Plot No. 1553. The said notice has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ application.

(3.) STAND taken in the counter affidavit has no bearing in this case. The land with respect to which the rent fixation case was instituted against Triveni Singh, that land stood in the name of Shanti Devi. This admission of respondents in counter affidavit that Commercial rent fixation case was initiated with respect to lands of Holding No. 1102. Not with respect to the land of Holding No. 527 which were recorded in the name of Shanti Devi is sufficient to show the illegality in the order. Though commercial rent fixation case was instituted with respect to holding no. 1102 Even then land which fell under Holding No. 527 have been assessed for fixation of commercial rent. The commercial rent fixation case was instituted in the name of a dead person as such the entire proceeding was illegal and the order which was passed in such a proceeding be liable to be quashed. Lastly the petitioner cannot be asked to avail the alternative remedy before approaching this court under its writ jurisdiction, when entire proceeding is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.