ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 8-4-1996 (Annexure 1) passed by the Chairman, Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board in Appeal Case No. 1/1996. By the impugned order, the Chairman cancelled the licence granted by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Buxar to the petitioner to hold Mela on certain lands claimed by him. The impugned order was passed on a memorandum filed by one Surendra Mohan Singh (not a party respondent to this writ petition); from the cause title and the operative portion of the impugned order, it appears that the memorandum was registered in the office as an appeal under Rule 129 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules and it was dealt with by the Chairman as such. It may also be appropriately, observed here that though arguments were advanced at some length on the merits of the impugned order, that is, regarding the validity of the reasons assigned for cancelling the licence, it later turned out that the order may not be able to pass the jurisdictional test and may have to be struck down on the ground that no appeal lay before the Chairman and he did not have the competence or the authority to cancel the licence granted by the Market Committee. In the later stages of the hearing of this case, learned Counsel focussed their submissions on this aspect of the matter, I accordingly propose to briefly touch upon the submissions made on the merits of the order and then to examine in some detail the question whether the Chairman had the necessary legal authority to pass the impugned order.

(2.) The controversy in this writ petition relates to the petitioner's right to hold Mela on some plots of land of Khata No. 1405 situated in village Barhampur in the district of Buxar and to obtain a licence from the Market Committee in terms of Rule 129 of the Rules. The petitioner's title over the lands in question is not in dispute. What, however, is in dispute is whether the bundle of rights, which are collectively expressed by the word 'title', include the right to hold Mela on the lands or whether that right, in respect of the lands in question, vested in the State at the time of abolition of Zamindari in terms of Section 7B of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950?

(3.) Earlier when the petitioner was denied licence to hold Mela on the lands of different khatas including Khata No. 1405, of village Barhampur, he came to this Court in CWJC No. 8344/1989. That writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 5-12-1989 (Annexure 3). Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, the relevant portion of the order is as follows :