MOST.JANKI KUER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which has emerged for consideration in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been whether the order, dated 11.8.1969, passed by respondent no. 2 and affirmed by respondent no. 3, by order dated 11.7.1988, reversing the order of the respondent No. 2, recorded on 10.3.1969 could be said to be legal, valid and justified? With a view to appreciating the merits of the appeal, let there be at the outset, skeleton projection of material and relevant facts.

(2.) The petitioner had submitted an application for fixation of rent in terms of sub -section (2) of Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 ("Act") in respect of the disputed land which is described elaborately in Annexure -6 to the petition. It will be expedient to refer to the same as under: - Tauzi Khata Khesra Acre Decimal No. No. No. 7310. 497 5057 1 86 499. 5058 1 66 5056. 52 4658. 58 4660. 1 57 4661. 1 93 498. 5059 1 28 5060. 70 500. 4641 94 8317. 1108 17 73 73. 21 79. 30 88. 24

(3.) FOLLOWING facts are unquestionably borne out from the records: - (i) On making an application for the fixation of rent claiming to be in "Khas possession" of the disputed land, to the respondent no. 3 in terms of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and after holding an inquiry, the respondent no. 2 held in favour of the pe titioner and fixed the rent by order dated 10.3.1969 and the application of respondent nos. 4 to 13 came to be rejected. The said order is placed on record as Annexure -3. Somehow or the other, respondent no. 2 called for the record and took up the matter in suo motu revision, and reversed the order passed by his counterpart on 10.3.1969 by passing an order on 11.8.1969, inter alia, holding that no rent can be fixed in title dispute. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this order is illegal on two counts; viz. (i) it suffers from the vice of the principles of natural justice as opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners and secondly, there is no such power of suo motu revision under the Act. Needless to mention that the order passed in so -called suo motu revision by the respondent no. 2, copy whereof is produced at Annexure -4, was questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed affirming the order of respondent no. 2.