HIRALAL VISHWAKARMA Vs. VISHWANATH SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing an order, dated the 2nd July, 1973 declaring Vishwanath Sah (respondent no. 1) as a privileged tenant in respect of petitioner's land a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6. There is also a prayer for quashing the order dated 28th May, 1974, of the Collector of the district dismissing the appeal as no appeal lies to the Collector of the district against the order passed by an officer acting as Collector under the Act.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition need be stated. On the 2nd of May, 1973, respondent no. 1 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Mushari Anchal to the effect that since about seven years he has constructed a house on plot no. 404 in village Majhouli under police station Dharmdas where he is living and that he has no other land. A prayer was, therefore, made that parcha under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") in respect of that land be issued in his favour and rent fixed in respect thereof After that petition there is a report dated 12th May, 1973, of Halka Karm- chari in which it is stated that respondent no. 1 is in possession of plot no. 404 on which he has got his house and the landlord of the plot in question is the petitioner. A copy of the said report has been filed as Annexure '2' The Circle Inspector as per his report dated 13th May, 1973, has mentioned as follows: "The report of the Karamchari is correct. The Parcha may kindly be issued under P. P. Act." Thereafter a notice was issued by the Circle Officer which was received bv the petitioner on the 30th June, 1973. On the next the 4th July 1973 the imnugned order as contained in Annexure 6 was passed. According to the petitioner, he came late and wanted to file a petition, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5, asserting that respondent no. 1 was a tenant of the house built by the petitioner in respect of which he has executed a Kirayanama in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 As directed when the petitioner appeared on 4th July, 1973, he was informed that the case had been disposed of and order for Parcha was already passed in favour of respondent no. 1. A copy of this order has been filed as Annexure 7.

(3.) Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has Urged that neither in the reports nor in the order by which Parcha had been directed to be granted in favour of respondent no. 1 and rent fixed there in any finding that respondent no. 1 was a 'privileged tenant' within the meaning of the Act. There seems to be substance in this contention of learned counsel. Section 2 (i) defines 'privileged person' to mean a person -