RAMDAYAL MISSIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these applications which have been heard together there is a common question of law arising for determination, namely, whether the Settlement Officer has authority to review an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer made under Section 103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act.

(2.) It appears that by an order of the Government of Bihar, revisional survey operation was under taken in the district of Purnea and record-of-rights -was under preparation. In the course of these proceedings the petitioners claimed that they had taken settlement of the disputed properties from the previous proprietors, namely, Dhir Narayan Chand and Bir Narayan Chand. It further appears that on 28th September, 1954, the estate of the proprietors vested in the State of Bihar by a notification published under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Thereafter the State of Bihar filed objections before the Assistant Settlement Officer, who held an elaborate enquiry and came to the conclusion that there was settlement made with the petitioners and the objections made by the State of Bihar should be disallowed. This order was passed on 10th of August, 1955, and is Annexure A to the application made by the petitioners. Against this order of the Assistant Settlement Officer the Government of Bihar applied in revision to the Settlement Officer. On 29th of February, 1956, the Settlement Officer held that he had no power of revision but it was open to him to review the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and that the revision petition should be treated as review petitions and should be transferred to a senior revenue officer for being dealt with. The order of the Settlement Officer is Annexure C to the application. The last paragraph of this order is important and it is necessary to quote it in full: "The next question which arises is, if any wrong has been committed, whether this can be righted before the final publication of the records. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code no doubt prescribes that a petition for review can only be presented to the Judge who passed the decree or made the order. The Assistant Settlement Officer in this case however is not a functus officio, as he has been transferred from this Department and District. The duties which he could have performed have now therefore to be performed either by me or by an officer designated by me for this purpose, vide Statutory Rule 40 under the Bihar Tenancy Act. It does not stand to reason that a right which the aggrieved party could have exercised if the Assistant Settlement Officer were present, is abrogated on account of any official change. Again it has been held in Raj Mohan Guha v. Alam Gazi Patwari, 17 Cal WN 625 (A) , quoted in Dr. S.C. Sen's Bengal Tenancy Act, 6th edition, page 550, that the Settlement Officer has inherent jurisdiction to correct any obvious error in the record. This must of course be done in a regular procedure after hearing the parties. This view is also supported in Lakhi Nath v. Nabadwip Chandra, 100 Ind Cas 7: (AIR 1927 Cal 268) (B). I therefore order that these petitions for review should be admitted. It is true that these were originally filed as petitions for revision but mat does not debar me from treating these as petitions for review. In view of the importance of the matter I consider that the review petitions should be heard by a senior reve-nue officer and I accordingly transfer these to the file of Shree Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Assistant Settlement Officer in charge for disposal. The hear-ing must be expedited. Sd/- K. K. Mitra, Settlement Officer, Purnea. 29-2-56."

(3.) The petitioners have obtained this rule from the High Court, calling upon the State of Bihar and the other opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued to quash the order of the Settlement Officer dated 29th of February, 1956. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the opposite parties to whom notice of the rule had been ordered to be given.