BABULALSAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that the order dated the 24th of December, 1983( Annexure 2) purporting to have been passed under Section48-E(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1885 (for short "the Act") in Batai Case No. of 1980-81 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bettiah (respondent no. 2), be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The essential fact of the case is that a number of applications were filed by the petitioner under Section 48-E (1) of the Act, they were numbered as Batai Case Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of 1980-81. A Board was constituted on the 1st of August, 1981, as is clear from the order-sheet dated the 15th of January, 1982 (Annexure 1) and the proceedings in the Board were in progress in accordance with law. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent no. 2), for the reasons best known to him, withdrew the case from the Board on the 15th of January, 1982 (vide Annexure 1), in view of purported exercise of power presumably under sub-section (10) of Section 48-E of the Act, and decided the case himself by the impugned order dated the 4th of December, 1983 (vide Annexure 2), holding that the petitioners failed to prove that they were Bataidars of respondent no. 4 and that the sale-deeds executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent nos 5 to 15 were genuine.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced intense and sharp arguments to the effect that the jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 48-E of the Act for withdrawing the proceeding, could be exercised within a period of six months from the date of appointment under sub-section (3) of Section 48-E of the Act. Only in that event the Collector shall decide the case himself in accordance with the provisions of the section. But the proceedings were withdrawn from the Board before completion of six months. The Board was constituted on the 1st of August, 1981 and six months would have been completed on the 1st of February, 1982 ; whereas the proceedings were withdrawn on the 15th of January, 1982 prior to that (15.2 1982) The impugned order contained no reasons. Hence the entire proceedings and the impugned order (Annexure 2) passed by respondent no. 2 are manifestly erroneous and without jurisdiction.