RADHA KRISHNA JHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD

(2.) THE petitioners ' brother (respondent no. 17) donated 4.80 acres of land in 1958 to the Bhoodan Yagya Committee. Recently, the Additional Collector apparently made allotments in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 16 and by a communication dated 8.11.2001 sent the matter to the Anchal Adhikari for mutation of name of those respondents 4 to 16 as there was adequate confirmation of land already available. On the basis of this proceeding being Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 2002 -03 was registered by the AnchaI Adhikari. The mutation in favour of respondents 4 to 16 was rejected vide order dated 1.7.2002 in the said proceedings apparently on the ground that the said respondent could not produce confirmation paper in respect of the said donation to Bhoodan Committee. Being aggrieved by the said action a revision application being Revision No. 12/2002 was filed by the said respondents before the Additional Collector, Supaul. This revision application was allowed and the Anchal Adhikari was directed to mutate the name of those respondents. The petitioners, who are the brothers of the land holder, who made the donation to Bhoodan Committee, on coming to know of this order, filed a miscellaneous case, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 23/03. There the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to entertain revision application against the order of the Anchal Adhikari. They also challenged that their brother (respondent no. 17) had no authority to donate the land, in question, as that land did not belong to him exclusively. It was a land of the family and could not be donated except with the consent of all family members who had inheritable rights in it. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioners. The result is that the order of Additional Collector directing mutation in favour of respondents no. 4 to 16 attained finality. It is these two last orders that are under challenge.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the matter I am not inclined to interfere in the matter for two reasons. Firstly, once the Additional Collector had forwarded the matter to the Anchal Adhikari clearly stating that the donation to the Bhoodan Committee had been confirmed and the Committee had decided to distribute the land and accordingly issued parchas to the private respondents 4 to 16 then it was not open to the Anchal Adhikari to ask those respondents to produce orders with regard to confirmation. Confirmation is a proceeding in which those private respondents have nothing to do. Once a superior officer communicated that confirmation had been obtained then for the Anchal Adhikari, who is a junior/subordinate officer, it was not open to question it. I, therefore, find that the order of the Anchal Adhikari on the face of it was wrong and was unsustainable. The petitioners are correct in saying that no revision as preferred by the private -respondents lay from such an order and as such the order of the Additional Collector though may be a correct order, was by a wrong authority. That may be so it is equally wrong in view of this Court that the petitioner attempted to upset the order before the Divisional Commissioner because no power vested in the Divisional Commissioner. In any view of the matter it would have been that the wrong order of the Anchal Adhikari has been set right by the Additional Collector. The same has not been interfered by the Divisional Commissioner. If this court were to interfere with the order of the Additional Collector and the Commissioner of the Division then setting aside those orders would revive the order of Anchal Adhikari, which, as stated above, was itself a wrong order.