JANG BAHADUR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned J.C. to S.C. No.5 for the State and Mr. Anurag Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 is not appearing today. Although several opportunity had been granted to respondent no.1 -starting from 5.5.2004 itself to file counter affidavit yet no counter affidavit controverting the stand of the petitioner is on the record by respondent no. 4.

(2.) THE relief sought for by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 17.9.93 (Annexure -1) passed by the Circle Officer, Raghopur in Case No. 37/93 -94 under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, the order dated 10.1.97 (Annexure -2) passed in Mutation Case No. 373/96 -97 and further to quash the order dated 2.7.2001 (Annexure -3) passed in Misc. Appeal No. 127/97 -98.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of Annexure -1 which contains the report of the Karamchari and the order of Circle Officer granting parcha in favour of respondent no. 4 that the same itself shows that the order was passed without jurisdiction since the requirement under the Act is for inspection by the officer not below the rank of Circle Officer whereas the inspection has been made by the Karamchari. Learned counsel further points out that even the report of the Karamchari speaks of notice to be issued to the land owner and after service report of the same parcha to be issued in favour of respondent no. 4 but without doing the same straightway parcha had been issued by order passed by the Circle Officer in Case No. 37/93 -94 on 17.9.93. The other contention of learned counsel is that sufficient lands stand in the name of Shyam Nandan Rai, father of respondent no. 4 in village -Chandpur, P.S. Raghopur and details of the land has been mentioned in para -3 (vi)(a) and further thereafter 2 trucks in his name bearing No. BWR -3654 and BWO -7162. He has got separate residential house. On that account he also submitted that respondent no. 4 is not a privileged person as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. For the said reasons it is submitted by learned counsel that the orders of the Circle Officer and the District Collector have been passed without jurisdiction, without hearing him or even his vendor who was the recorded owner of the land since no notice had been issued even on him.