RADHA KRISHNA THAKUR JI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the seven petitioners are challenging the order of seizure made in the month of October, 1974, which is made Annexure '3' to this writ application, by a Magistrate under the provisions of Clause 6 of the Bihar Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock by Cultivators and Requirement to Sell) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order') and the subsequent order dated 2-11-1974 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Monghyr (Annexure '4') and of the Collector dated the 20th January, 1975 (Annexure '6').

(2.) The relevant facts are these : It is an undisputed fact that petitioner No. 2, Shiva Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, is a recorded 'cultivator', within the meaning of the Order and so is petitioner No. 1 who is the deity of his family. The deity also has been recorded as a cultivator in the revenue records. The third petitioner, Janardan Prased Jaiswal is the son, whereas two petitioners Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Smt. Chandrakala Jaiswal and Smt. Mira Rani Jaiswal are the two married daughters of petitioner No. 2. The sixth petitioner, Bina Rani Jaiswal is an unmarried daughter and the last petitioner, Smt. Chandra Mukhi Devi happens to be the wife of the second petitioner, each one of whom is also a land holder separately mutated as a raiyat in the revenue records of the State of Bihar. In support of this fact, which is although not controverted, rent receipts issued by the revenue authorities have been filed end annexed to this application as Annexure '1' series. On 12th October, 1974, a raid was made by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate on the house of the petitioners who live in one and the same house and a large quantity of foodgrains were seized in that operation. The total quantities of different kinds of foodgrains found at that time by the authorities were as follows:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_342_AIR(PAT)_1976Html1.htm</FRM> The foodgrains were seized by the raid ing party under en impression that it be longed to only one 'cultivator', namely, the petitioner Shiva Shankar Prasad Jaiswal.

(3.) The petitioners then filed separate representations before the Sub-divisional Officer, as provided under Clause 5 (1) of the Order. It provides that any cultivator required under Clause 4 to sell his stock of wheat and/or paddy, rice, gram, maize or any part thereof may, within seven days from the date of such order, make a representation to the concerned Sub-divisional Officer giving details of his bona fide requirements, and the like, who after giving him an opportunity of being heard may either allow the same wholly or in part; or reject the same. It may be further stated that under Clause 4 every cultivator, holding in stock foodgrains in quantity exceeding his reasonable requirements when required to do so by an order in writing served on him by the Sub-divisional Officer, is to sell to the State Government or to an Officer or agent of the State Government such quantity of foodgrains as may be determined by the Sub-divisional Officer, to be in excess of his reasonable requirements and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order passed by him for which a form has been prescribed in the Order itself. Earlier to that, Clause 3 (1) provides that every cultivator who holds in stock any one foodgrains exceeding twenty quintals or all foodgrains taken together exceeding fifty quintals in quantity shall forthwith make a true declaration of the foodgrains held in stock by him in the prescribed form.