RAM KUMARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application, under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

(2.) ONE Babu Ajodhya Prasad Singh of village. Nava Kothi, P. S. Bakhari, district Monghyr, was possessed of a large property consisting of about 4000 acres of agricultural lands in his possession and an income of about Rs. 9000/- per year as cash rental receivable from tenants. The average yearly income from the agricultural lands was nearly Rs. 150,000/-. These lands lie in several villages one of which is village Kusmaut. In this village he had about 2,500 bighas of cultivable lands yielding an approximate income of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The tenants who pay cash rental live in different villages lying under different police stations. In village Kusmaut, accoding to the petitioners, there is only one tenant who pays about Rs. 5/- as rent per year, while, according to the opposite party, there are two tenants who pay Rs. 29/7/- as rent per year. In this village there is a fairly big pucca build-Ing which is recorded in the survey record-of-rights as being a pucca building o the said Babu Ajodhya Prasad Singh. In April, 1945, he created a trust of his entire properties and the petitioners are the trustees thereof. The estate held by these petitioners as trustees vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in pursuance of a notification dated 22-5-1953. On 28-9-1954, a notice was issued by the Collector of Monghyr to the petitioners for making over vacant possession of this building to the Anchal-Adhikari of Begusarai by 15-10-1954, as, according to him, it was a kutchery building. On 13-10-1954, an application was filed on behalf of the trustees before the Collector stating that the building in question was not a kutchery and, as such, they should not be asked to make over possession of the same to the Anchal Adhikari. This application was disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate in the capacity of a Revenue Collector who passed an order on 15-10-1954 direct-Ing the Sub-divisional Officer of Begusarai to make an enquiry into the matter. On 28-10-1954, the Circle inspector asked the petitioner No. 7 to give vacant possession of the said building and on the next day an application was made on behalf of the trustees before the Anchal Adhikari requesting him not to interfere with their possession over the building till the final disposal of the matter pending before the Revenue Collector. Again on 30-10-1954, the same Circle Inspector asked him to make over possession of the building In question and he further stated that orders in writing were received in his office for taking possession of the building by force. Thereafter the present application was made in this Court on 1-11-1954, and the members of the opposite party were restrained from taking possession of the building till the hearing of this application.

(3.) IN the supplementary affidavit filed on 17-3-1956, it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that the enquiry, if any, made by the Additional Sub-divisional Officer, was made without giving any information to them and this statement has not been controverted in the affidavit given in reply on behalf of the State on 4-4-1956. It is manifest, therefore, that the enquiry was made behind the, back of the petitioners without giving any notice to them and there has thus been a violation of natural justice.