RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Art.7 of Sch. I of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, entitles the Collector to recover the agreed settlement amount from settles of a Hat, bazar or mela in the absence of a duly executed registered lease deed, is the ticklish question requiring adjudication in this Full Bench. Directly on the issue is the contrary view of the Division Bench in S.A. Mannan v. State of Bihar, ILR (1958) 37 Pat 302, followed later in Prabhunath Singh v. The State of Bihar 1980 BBCJ (HC) 344.

(2.) The facts are not in serious dispute. On the 1st April, 1977, an open auction was held in the presence of Shri Awadhesh Prasad Singh, Deputy Collector Gaya, for the settlement of hat in Khizersarai for the year 1977-78. The petitioner along with others participated therein and deposited Rs. 600/- as security money and the bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 11,501/- only as the highest bidder. It is the petitioner's claim that he later deposited Rs. 5,400/- with the Anchal Adhikari, though, admittedly, no receipt whatsoever was issued by him. It is then averred on behalf of the petitioner that neither any parwana or any toll chart was issued in favour of the petitioner and further no registered lease deed was executed betwixt the respondent State and the petitioner, as required by R.7-T of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951. It is his case that only by virtue of the terms of agreement executed in the Prescribed Form 'P(4)' that the arrears of rent or interest, etc., with regard to such settlement can be made recoverable under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The further case sought to be set up on behalf of the petitioner is that he applied before the Anchal Adhikari for issuance of toll chart or parwana, which, however, was not issued, and, consequently, he did not collect the tolls from the said bazar even for a single day. Later the petitioner moved an application for the refund of the total amount of Rs. 6000/- vide Annexure-'1' to the writ petition. Far from this being done a notice dated 29-11-1977 was issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Khizersarai, demanding deposit of the bid money of Rs. 11,501/- from the petitioner and in reply thereto he denied any such liability and reiterated his demand for the refund instead. Later a certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a notice dated 19-12-1977 under S.7 of the Act was issued vide Annexure-'2'. The petitioner filed an objection before the Certificate Officer, Gaya, (respondent No. 3), who rejected the objection vide his order dated 24-1-1978 and with some modification directed realisation of the amount. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal under S.60 of the Act before the Additional Collector, who, after hearing the parties, rejected the same vide Annexure-'4' dated 18-3-1981. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition was preferred, inter alia, challenging the very maintainability of the certificate proceeding against him under the Act, primarily on the ground that no registered lease deed had been formally executed betwixt him and the respondent State.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the factum of holding of an open auction and the bid having been knocked down in favour of the petitioner as the highest bidder for Rs. 11,501/- is clearly admitted. However, the petitioner's claim that he had subsequently deposited Rs. 5,400/- with the Anchal Adhikari, who allegedly did not issue any receipt, is stoutly denied and it is stated that he never deposited any amount and the coined out version is entirely false. It is averred that the petitioner started collecting tolls from Khizersarai Bazar despite the fact that he had not deposited the requisite money and further though the bid chart was duly issued vide Memo No. 409 dated 1-12-1977, the petitioner refused to accept the same. It is admitted that no registered lease deed could be executed but the petitioner had put his signatures on the bid sheet dated 1-4-1977 in token of the fact that he had agreed to aside by the order or instructions of the Officer and that he had agreed to take settlement at Rs. 11,501/-. It is reiterated that the petitioner had in fact continuously collected tolls after the bid was knocked down in his favour. The Anchal Adhikari directed the Circle Inspector to hold an enquiry about the collecting of the tolls and vide his report (Annexure-'C') he clearly held that the petitioner was collecting the same from Khizersarai Bazar ever since 1-4-1977. The other pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner are stoutly controverted and the impugned orders, Annexures-3 and 4, are averred to be legal and unimpeachable.