DEVENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing a resolution dated the 21st September, 1972 of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ application. By the impugned resolution, the respondent-Additional Member, Board of Revenue has set aside an order dated 3-7-1969 passed by the respondent Charge Officer, a copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ application.

(2.) It appears that in the district of Saharsa steps for preparation of record of rights in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') were taken and the respondent Assistant Settlement Officer prepared a draft record of rights which was published in the prescribed manner. Respondent No. 6 filed an objection which was heard by the said Assistant Settlement Officer, and the, by his order dated 29-5-1969, corrected the said draft publication by deleting the name of the petitioner in respect of several plots which had been shown in his possession in the draft publication. A copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petitioner filed an application which was addressed to the Settlement Officer, Saharsa making a grievance about the order dated 29-5-1969 and praying therein that he should be given opportunity to produce relevant materials, as the correction on the objection filed by respondent No. 6 had been made without hearing the petitioner. The Charge Officer who was a revenue officer specially appointed by the State Government, on 3-7-1969, passed the following order on the application filed by this petitioner: "Heard. The A. S. O. is allowed to reopen the case and dispose in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned. Sd. P.K. Singh, C.O. 3-7-1969." A copy of the application of the petitioner along with the orders passed thereon, as aforesaid, is annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and has been marked as Annexure 5. It is said that this order dated 3-7-1969 was passed by the respondent Charge Officer without hearing respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 also filed an application for review of this order before the Charge Officer concerned, but before any final order could be passed on that application, the dispute was heard by the Assistant Settlement Officer before whom the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 appeared and the Assistant Settlement Officer, by his order dated 25-7-1969, only partially corrected the draft publication of the record of rights, i. e., the accepted some of the objections raised by respondent No. 6, but rejected the same in respect of the remaining plots. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 being aggrieved by order dated 25-7-1969 filed two revision applications before the Charge Officer, under Sub-section (3) of Section 103-A of the Act. The Charge Officer, however, allowed the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner, but dismissed that filed on behalf of respondent No. 6, by his order dated 1-2-1971. A copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the writ application.

(3.) It is an admitted position that respondent No. 6 filed applications by way of appeals to the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Divison as then Saharsa district was within his jurisdiction (we are informed now it is within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Kosi Division). It appears that the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division dismissed the appeals in limine on 30-11-1971 saying that other remedies were available to respondent No. 6. Thereafter, respondent No. 6 filed revision applications before the Member, Board of Revenue which were heard by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue who passed the impugned order on 21-9-1972, as already, stated above. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue by the impugned order came to the conclusion that on 3-7-1969 (Annexure 5) the Charge Officer could not have remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer for a fresh consideration after hearing the parties. According to him, this order amounted to an order of review which was not sanctioned by the provisions of the Act. In this connection, it may be mentioned that respondent No. 6 had not moved the Board of Revenue against the order dated 3-7-1969. He had approached the Board of Revenue for quashing the order dated 1-2-1971 passed by the Charge Officer and order dated 30-11-1971 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division.