RAMJIBAN SHAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing two orders of the Circle Officer, Deoghar (Respondent No. 2), dated the 8th June, 1973 (Annexure '3/A') and dated the 15th June, 1973 (Annexure 5). Petitioner No. 1, Ramjiban Singh, is the father of the other petitioner, Arun Kumar Shah. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ application may be shortly stated.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, Ramjiban Shah claims to have purchased 9 kathas 4 dhurs of land (by Rohini Measurement) on the 30th January, 1931, for a consideration of Rs. 1,100/- and the rent payable for the same to the Cutcherry of the Rohini landlords was Rs. 21.75 only. Petitioner No. 1 built a hall and some rooms on the said land and then let them out to different persons for residential purposes. Those buildings and the land were recorded as Holding No. 26 of Ward No. 6 of the Deoghar Municipality. The petitioner's case is that on the 6th June, 1967, by an amicable partition between petitioner No. 1. his wife and petitioner No. 2, properties belonging to the joint family were partitioned under a partition deed, as a result of which Holding No. 26. aforesaid, was allotted to Petitioner No. 2, along with other properties. It may be stated here that this Holding No. 26 was subsequently changed into Holding Nos. 27 and 28. Before this partition, the said hall, built by Petitioner No. 1, was let out to one Maheshwar Roy, who started a cinema business in the same. After the said partition, by a deed of lease dated the 18th Nov. 1969, Petitioner No. 2 let out the said hall to one Shankar Prasad Roy, who is running a cinema business in the said hall. Petitioner No. 2 claims to have got his name mutated in the Municipal Records in respect of the holding in question by an order dated the 25th July, 1968 (Annexure '1'). It is also asserted that the deed of partition was accepted by the Income-tax Officer, Deoghar. under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, by an order in respect of the Assessment Year 1967-68 (Annexure '2'). Petitioner No. 2 then applied for mutation of his name in the office of the Circle Officer, Deoghar, and his name was ordered to be mutated in respect of the land in question, by an order dated the 26th July, 1971 (Annexure '3').

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is that this order of mutation (Annexure 3) was cancelled by the Circle Officer, Deoghar, by an order dated the 8th June, 1973, after about two years, without even giving petitioner No. 2 any opportunity of being heard. A copy of the order dated the 8th June, 1973 has been filed as Annex. '3/A'. It is further stated that on the 9th Mar. 1973, the Karmachari of the area had submitted a report to the Circle Officer, Deoghar, for fixation of rent for Jamabandi No. 3123, on which the cinema hall and some rooms stand. A copy of the said report of the Karmachari has been filed as Annexure 4. On the basis of that report, the Circle Officer, by an order dated the 15th June, 1973, fixed rent payable in respect of Jamabandi No. 3123, to be Rs. 18,900/-, in place of Rs. 21.75 paise. This order (Annexure '5') has also been impugned in this writ application.