CHANDRESHWAR SINGH @ CHANDRASH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN this writ application, the writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.7.1998 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Kahalgaon whereby and whereunder Parcha on behalf of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') was granted in favour of respondents no. 4 and 5. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 16.7.2004 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur affirming the said order of Anchal Adhikari, Kahalgaon dated 15.7.1998 by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act. Counsel for petitioner while assailing the correctness of the aforementioned impugned orders has submitted that Basgit Parcha issued in favour of respondents 4 and 5 was based on an order of Anchal Adhikari, Kahalgaon dated 15.7.1998 which was passed without notice and/or opportunity of hearing to him. In this context he has also referred to complete violation of provision of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") inasmuch as the local enquiry was neither made by Anchal Adhikari, Kahalgaon himself nor by any responsible officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector in terms of Rule 5(i) of the Rules and that even the mandatory provision of Rule 5(2) requiring issuance of notice in Form -F to all the interested parties intimating the date on which enquiry shall be made and directed the parties to produce all evidence in their possession in support of or against application filed by respondent no. 4 was not followed. It was further submitted that as a matter of fact no enquiry or a report in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules had been submitted to the Anchal Adhikari who in fact without complying the provision of Rule 5(4) of the Rules had passed an order for issuance of Basgit Parcha in favour of both respondents 4 and 5 whereas the application for issuance of such Basgit Parcha was filed only by respondent no. 4.

(3.) ASSAILING further order of the Collector of the district dated 16.7.2004 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector of the district also did not choose to even refer to the plea raised by the petitioner in his application under Section 21 of the Act and in fact had passed a perfunctory order by affirming the order of Anchal Adhikari dated 15.7.1998, directing issuance of purcha in favour of respondents 4 and 5, even without adjudicating most vital issue like the complete breach of violation of Rules 5(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Rules as also without taking into consideration that respondents 4 and 5 were in fact not fit to be declared as privileged persons defined under Section 2 (i) of the Act.