RADHA KRISHNAJEE Vs. RATANDHARI SINGH, COMMISSIONER, DARBHAGA DIVISION, TREASURY OFFICER, ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application is directed against the order, Dated 31.12.82 as contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, in Misc. Case No. 97/1982-83, by reason of which he has set aside the order, dated 4.8.82, as contained in Annexure-2, passed by the Collector of Madhubani in Misc. Case No. 36/82.

(2.) For appreciating the points urged on behalf of the parties, some relevant facts are required to be kept in mind, which are as follows. Mother of one Chandradhari Singh created a Trust known as Shree Radh Krish-najee Trust. The first trustee was the mother who nominated her son, Chandradhari Singh as her successor-in-office on her death. By the deed of Trust, Chandradhari Singh was empowered to nominate his successor' from among the group from his choice. The said Trust was held to be a genuine Trust for charitable and religious purposes by the Government and, as such, a final order was passed under Section 21(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Compensation assessment roll was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act. Although Chandradhari Singh nominated Petitioner No. 2, namely, Shashidhari Singh, as the next Shabait, after the death of Chandradhari Singh, Respondent No. 1, namely, Ratandhari Singh, Anr. son of late Chandradhari Singh raised objection regarding the said nomination. The father of Petitioner No. 2, Chandradhari Singh, being a peace loving person, executed a compromise petition in respect of future line of succession of Shebaitship after his death. The compromise petition stipulated that both Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 shall manage the affairs of Petitioner No. 1. The Collector recorded the said compromise, but ordered that the name of Chandradhari Singh be substituted in place of Tantrawati Bahuasin, the creator of the Trust for further action in respect of the payment of the annuity. It appears that the Collector of Madhubani, after hearing both the brothers, directed that the new annuity demand should be issued in the name of Petitioner No. 2, Shashidhari Singh. It is said that the Petitioner No. 2 received payment of annuity for the year 1981 on the death of the said Chandradhari Singh. Respondent No. 1, however, being aggrieved by the order of Collector, filed Misc. Case No. 97/82-83 before Respondent No. 2. By the impugned order. Annexure-1, Respondent No. 2 set aside the order of the Collector, Madhubani, and hence, this writ application.

(3.) From the record, it appears that Respondent No. 1 has appeared by filing Vakalatnama as well as the counter-affidavit. At the time of hearing, however, nobody appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Mr Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, has assisted the Court very fairly.