THAKUR GRIJA NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five writ applications have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The petitioner in all these writ applications is the landlord. Respondent No. 5 in each of the writ applications have claimed themselves to be privileged persons under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The petitioner in each of these applications has prayed for quashing the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 8 of each of the writ petitions. By order dated 9-6-1975 contained in Annexure 1 of the writ applications the Anchal Adhikari has granted Parchas to respondent No. 5 of each of the writ applications under the provisions of the Act. By Annexure-8 of the each of the writ application the Additional Collector has ordered restoration of possession to respondent No. 5 of each of the writ petitions.

(2.) Respondent No. 5 of each of the petitions filed applications under Section 5(1) of the Act for restoration of possession over their homestead" It was, inter alia, stated that they were privileged tenants and were entitled for a permanent tenancy in the homestead held by them. The applications were initially allowed. The Additional Collector affirmed those orders against which the petitioner came to this Court and filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was numbered as C.W.J.C. 1200 of 1977. On 28-3-1979 a Bench of this Court remanded the case back to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms to hold an inquiry in accordance with Rule 5 of the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules. It appears that an inquiry was held and a report was submitted by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms on 12-12-1979. Relying upon that report the Additional Collector has by the order contained in Annexure-8 of each of these writ applications ordered restoration of possession to Respondent No. 5 of each of these petitions, as stated above.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the applications having been filed by respondent No. 5 of each of these petitions sometime in the year 1974 could not be one under Section 5 of the Act and no order for restoration could therefore be passed. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as under: