HARISHCHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law involved in these three applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution relates to the ambit and parameter of the power of State Government or Collector to re-open concluded proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 hereinafter called 'the Ceiling Act' by virtue of the power conferred by Section 45-B of the said Act as also the vires of Section 45-B. They have been heard together and shall, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts necessary for appreciating the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners must be stated herein now. There is an Asthal (a kind of free monastery in which communities of religious medicants reside together under a Mahant) in the district of Vaishali known as Patepur Asthal. Mahanth Ramanand Das is the Head of the Asthal. The Asthal has set up temples at different places and various deities have been installed therein. The Asthal was possessed of vast landed properties. According to the petitioner, the properties ascribed to separate temples in turn vest in the deities as Debottar properties. The Ceiling Act having been enacted, the petitioner Mahanth filed return of lands in possession of the petitioners. Ceiling Case No. 30 of 1974 was initiated accordingly. Draft statements in terms of Section 10 (2) having been published, the Collector after hearing objections, by order dated 23-12- 1975 (Annexure-1) declared 137.30 acres of class II lands as surplus. Notification in terms of Section 11 (1) was accordingly issued. The order of the Collector contained in Annexure-1 was approved by State Government by Annexure-4 in 1976. It appears that the approval by State Government by Annexure-4 did not conclude matters. In Jan., 1978 Government being of the view that probably the adjudication of surplus lands had not been in accordance with law, issued notice to Mahanth Ramanand Das to show cause why the adjudication regarding the declaration of surplus lands be not nullified and the matter be not re-examined afresh. This notice was in terms of Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act. Section 45-B has not been mentioned in the notice (Annexure-5), but the tenor of the notice shows clearly that it was in terms of Section 45-B. The petitioners showed cause challenging the power and jurisdiction of the State Government to take recourse to Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act. While the cause shown by the petitioners was under consideration, on 4-7-1978, by Annexure-6 Collector, Vaishali called upon petitioner No. 1 to produce the Cash Book for the period 1959-60 to 1970-71. This was to be produced by 22-7-1978. The order was not complied and no cash book was produced. By order dated 19-8-1978 (Annexure-7) the State Government resolved that the matter needed to be examined afresh. Orders were, therefore, passed to reopen and examine the matter afresh. The State Government having ordered re-opening of the ceiling case, the Collector, Vaishali by notice dated 29-9-1978 (Annexure-8) fixed 18-10-1978 for hearing of the matter. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to appear in person or through counsel before Collector, Vaishali. Being aggrieved by Annexures 7 and 8, re-opening the assessment of surplus, petitioner No. 1 and the deities have moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4699 of 1978 for quashing Annexures-7 and 8.

(3.) C. W. J. C. No. 308 of 1979 is for quashing Annexures-6, 7 and 8 to the said application. By Annexure-6 of this application after the order for re-opening the assessment, the Collector under the Act by order dated 30-10-1978 ordered launching of prosecution of the petitioner for non-compliance of order dated 30-6-1978 (Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C. No. 4699 of 1978). Annexure-7 is the complaint in pursuance thereof by Collector, Vaishali against Mahanth Ramanand Das, his Chela Shrikant Saran and Shiva Chandra Prasad, an employee of accused No. 1 for prosecuting the accused under Section 36 of the Ceiling Act. By Annexure-8 dated 30-10-1978 the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against the petitioners. Hence C.W.J.C. No. 308 of 1979 for quashing Annexures-6, 7 and 8.