JAI RAM DAS BHATIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is involved an identical question of law. The point to be decided is as to the true scope and purport of the provisions of Section 48-F of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Both these applications are directed against an order passed by the Additional Collector in the purported exercise of his powers under Section 48-F of the Act. I shall therefore, first deal with the facts of C. W. J. C. No. 320 of 1974 and after having decided the question of law involved shall merely refer to the distinct facts of C, W. J. C. No. 326 of 1974. C. W. J. C. No. 320 of 1974 :

(2.) The petitioner claims to be owning 40 acres of land situate in the hilly tracts at the foot of Rajgir hills evidently unirrigated. The petitioner has three sons, who in accordance with Explanation IV of Section 48-C of the Act are to be treated as separate. Respondents 3 to 9 claiming to be under-raiyats under the petitioner landlord filed applications before the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms (respondent No. 2) for initiation of proceedings under Section 48-E of the Act. They complained that they were being threatened with unlawful ejectment from their batai lands by the petitioner landlord. Similar petitions on the same grounds had also been filed simultaneously by a number of other persons claiming to be under-raiyats. Such other persons, however, subsequently withdrew their claims asserting in their petitions of withdrawal that they had been induced and persuaded to lay claims at the behest of a particular political party We are, however, not concerned with the cases of such other claimants. For the purpose of disposal of this application it is not necessary to give the particulars of the area of the land claimed by each of the contesting respondents. A proceeding was duly initiated under Section 48-E of the Act and the petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner in his show cause petition asserted that the contesting respondents have or had no concern whatsoever with the disputed lands as bataidars. Admittedly a Board of Settlement was constituted under the provisions of Section 48-E (3). A Chairman of the Board was duly appointed. The Board tried to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute as enjoined under Sub-section (7) of Section 48-E. The attempt to bring about amicable settlement proved abortive. It then made enquiries into the respective claims of the parties. Evidence was adduced. Findings were recorded by the Board in favour of the petitioner. The Board found and recommended that the contesting respondents could not substantiate their claim of under-rayati interest. The records of the case were duly transmitted to the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms (respondent No, 2). It appears, as is contended by learned counsel for the respondents, that respondent No. 2 on receipt of the findings and record from the Board of Settlement issued notices to the petitioner as well as to the contesting respondents. After hearing them, respondent No. 2 exercising the powers of the Collector under Section 48-E (7) disposed of the proceedings in accordance with the terms of the findings of the Board. The report of the Board has been marked Annexure '1' to the application. A copy of the order of respondent No. 2 dated 29-11-1972 disposing of the proceedings in accordance with the terms of the findings of the Board has been marked Annexure '2' to the application. From Annexure 2 it also appears that apart from the findings and recommendations of the Board certain other materials were also taken into consideration for the purpose of reinforcing the conclusion arrived at by the Board. It is needless for me to mention such intrinsic materials for they are not necessary for the disposal of the point at issue. Thereafter the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Collector purportedly under Section 48-F of the Act and the learned Additional Collector of Nalanda (respondent No. 1) by his appellate order dated 5-12-73 (Annexure 3) has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms as also the findings recorded by the Board of Settlement. It is this appellate order of the Additional Collector, the validity of which has been attacked in this writ application,

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties did not canvass the factual aspects of the matter which may have had any bearing upon the point under consideration. The petitioner attacks the appellate order of the Additional Collector merely on the ground of jurisdiction. It wag contended on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal under Section 48-F of the Act was wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, acting as the Collector, disposing of the proceedings in accordance with the terms of the findings of the Board of Settlement. The only question, therefore, that arises for consideration is as to what is the true construction of the provisions of Section 48-F.