RAM BRIKSH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 15-10-2004 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 44 of 2003 by the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya by which, he recalled/cancelled the orders dated 13-05-1994 passed in Appeal No. 34 of 1991 and other appeals as well as the order passed in Case No. 103 of 1989 and others.

(2.) The brief fact which lies to file this writ petition is that in Survey Operation of Sherghati Municipality, the names of petitioners were entered in the records in respect of plots contained at Annexure-1 to this writ petition but in the year, 1988-89, the original respondents No. 4 to 28 filed objection against the above-said entries under Section-9 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Survey Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Notices were issued to petitioners, who filed their objections. The concerned authority vide order dated 23-03-1991 directed to record the names of respondents No. 4 to 28 and others in possession column of the records. The above-said order dated 23- 03-1991 passed by the Assistant Survey Superintendent was challenged by petitioners as well as concerned respondents before the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya and altogether 70 appeals were filed. The Superintendent of Survey, Gaya passed common order on 13-05-1994 in Appeal No. 34 of 1991 and by the aforesaid order, all the above-said appeals were disposed off. The Superintendent of Survey, Gaya set aside the order dated 23-03-1991 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 125 of 2009 and others and directed to enter the name of petitioners in concerned records in respect of plots in question but after lapse of about 10 years, respondent No. 4 Smt Deoki Devi and some others filed a petition before the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya, challenging the order dated 13-05-1994 passed in Appeal No. 34 of 1991 and other appeals. The Superintendent of Survey, Gaya registered the aforesaid petitions as Misc. Case No. 44 of 2003 and issued notices to petitioners, who appeared and filed their objection, raising the plea that only appeal shall lie against the order dated 13-05-1994 passed in Appeal No. 34 of 1991 & other appeals but the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya vide order dated 15-10-2004, reviewed his earlier order dated 13-05-1994 passed in Appeal No. 34 of 1991 & other appeals.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 28 and a specific plea has been taken in the counter affidavit that the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya did not review his order dated 13-05-1994 passing impugned order dated 15-10-2004 in Misc. Case No.44 of 2003 and as a matter of fact, the case of respondents No. 4 to 28 was never considered by the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them while disposing off all the 70 appeals passing order dated 13-05-1994 in Appeal Case No. 34 of 1991. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that since there was procedural ulta vires, the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya corrected his previous order, passing the impugned order.