BIKRAMA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the petitioners, Mr. Abbas Haider, JC to GP No. II for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha for respondent Nos. 6 to 9. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.2001 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Saran at Chapra in Misc. Petition No. 24/95 Tapeshwar Thakur and Ors. v. Sitaram Thakur and Ors. in purported exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the revision petition at the instance of respondent Nos. 6 to 9 herein has been allowed, and the settlement of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. According to the writ petition, it relates to plot No. 684, appertaining to khata No. 146, covering an area of 71/2 decimals= 2 kathas, situate at village Shekhpura, district Saran. It is further stated in the writ petition that the total area of this plot is 5 kathas and 2 dhurs, and the said 71/2 decimals of which was settled in favour of the petitioners by order dated 8.9.1982, as is evidenced by parcha marked Annexure-2 to the writ petition followed by the rent receipts marked Annexure-3 series. Respondent No. 6 to 9 had filed an application before the learned DCLR stating therein that the lands in question are gair- mazarua aam lands, being a garha used by members of the general public for purposes of bathing, drinking water, chhath and such other matters, and is being settled year after year for purposes of fishery settlement. The same was disposed of by order dated 27.9.2003, wherein he found that it was a garha being a pond used for the said purposes. He, however, desisted from cancelling the settlement for the reason that he was not authorised to do so. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 thereafter preferred revision application in terms of Section 21 of the Act which has been allowed by the impugned order and the settlement has been cancelled. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the settlee.

(2.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order dated 8.9.1982, ordering settlement in favour of the petitioners, had become final. He next submits that the revision application was not maintainable because the provision for revision in terms of Section 21 was inserted by Act XI of 1989 with effect from 25.9.1989, much less at the instance of mere busy-body like respondent Nos. 6 to 9 who claim no personal interest in the matter and have no locus standi to maintain the same. He relies on the following reported Judgments in support of his submission that a provision of law inserted at a later date cannot be allowed to be re-opened thereunder unless the same was retrospective in character either by clear provision of law or necessary intendment :

(3.) Learned government counsel has supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 9 has adopted his submissions.