ARUN KUMAR LAL DAS @ ARUN KUMAR KARN SON OF LATE UTTIM LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION AND LAND REFORMS GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AC to GA-10 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 06.12.1986 passed in Homestead Parcha Case No.19 of 1986-87 by the respondent Circle Officer, Pandaul, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the claims raised on behalf of the private respondents for issuance of Homestead parcha for 13 dhurs of land under the provisions of The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (in short 'Act, 1947') has been allowed and the consequential homestead parchas have been issued to them. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2002 passed by the District Collector, Madhubani in Homestead Parcha Case No.142 of 2000-2001, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid case filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sec. 21 of the Act, 1947 has been dismissed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned final order dated 06.12.1986 by the respondent Circle Officer, Pandaul. He further submitted that once the petitioner learnt about the order passed by the Circle Officer, Pandaul, allowing the claim of the private respondents under the provisions of the Act, 1947, then he approached the respondent District Collector, Madhubani under Sec. 21 of the Act, 1947 assailing the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Circle Officer, Pandaul, which gave rise to Homestead Parcha Case No. 142 of 2000-01, but that was finally dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.02.2002 (Annexure-4) on the ground of limitation. According to him, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.