KALI PD SEAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the proceedings of L.E.R. Case No. 33 of 1963 -64 in the Court of the Deputy Collector In -charge, Land Reforms, Pakur, in the district of Santhal Parganas, which was instituted on a report made by the Subdivisional Officer, P.W. D., Pakur on the 17th February, 1964 (Annexure G) may be quashed. The further prayer is to the effect that two orders passed in that case, on the 6th September, 1966, by the Additional Collector, Santhal Parganas, and on the 30th June, 1967, by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division against the petitioner may be quashed and cancelled.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows :

(3.) In the circumstances mentioned above, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the same matter which had been dropped by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on the 18th January, 1964 has been raked up in this new case numbered as L.E.R. Case No. 33 of 1963 -64 and the entire proceeding of the pending case should be quashed on the ground that the same matter cannot be reopened over and over again. Sri Katriar appearing for the respondents has contended that the present case is with respect to a different encroachment and, therefore, the petitioner's case must fail, when all that has happened is that competent officers have ordered fresh measurement by responsible persons. On the materials on record, however, I do not think that the argument of Sri Katriar is valid at all. If a comparison is made of the earliest report given by the S.D.O., P.W.D., Pakur (Annexure A), on which L.E.R. Case No. 45/71 of 1957 -58 had proceeded, with the new report dated the 17th February, 1964, given by the S.D. O., P.W.D., Pakur (Annexure G) on which L.E.R. Case No. 33 of 1963 -64 has commenced, it will appear that the complaints about the encroachment are identical. Annexure A mentioned that the encroachment was by the owner of plot No. 1903, named Kali Seal on a road, by a pucca house, to the extent of 31 feet X 6 feet, measuring in area 186 square feet. Annexure G also gives identical details by stating that plot No. 1903 has encroached on the road plot No. 1865 to the extent of 31 feet X 6 feet, totalling 186 square feet in area. It appears from the order of the Deputy Collector Incharge, Land Reforms, Pakur, dated the 14th February, 1966 that Kali Ptasad Seal had urged that the same old matter had been re -opened and the Deputy Collector had called for the record of L.E.R. Case No. 49 of 1959 -60 and on going through the record, he had come to the conclusion that the same alleged encroachment matter had been re -opened in the second case. In my opinion, the officer was right in his conclusion. With respect to the observations made in Annexure I and J, to the effect that the alleged encroachment may be verified by responsible senior officers, it may be mentioned that in the order dated the 18th January, 1964, passed by the Deputy Collector Incharge. Land Reforms in L.E.R. Case No. 49 of 1959 -60, it is stated that the S.D.O., P.W.D., Pakur had been informed to remain present to see how far the joint measurement report made on the 22nd December, 1963 was correct. Therefore, there is no validity in the contention raised by Sri Katriar thatthis Court should not interfere at this stage, when all that has been ordered is fresh measurement by responsible officers. It is clear from the annexures filed by the petitioner, that, the old matter finally concluded on the 18th January, 1964 is being raised again, under a new garb. From the measurement reports, dealt with earlier, it is clear that the first encroachment case was based on the allegation of an encroachment of 31 feet X 6 feet on the road and the fresh report on which L.E.R. Case No. 33 of 1963 -64 has been started is with respect to the same allegation of encroachment. When the order passed on the 18th January, 1964 became final, the case of this alleged encroachment must also be taken to have been finally concluded and there was no jurisdiction in the officers concerned to reagitate the matter in L.E.R. Case No. 33 of 1963 -64. Therefore, the proceeding pending as L.E.R. Case No. 33 of 1963 -64 in the Court of the Deputy Collector Incharge, Land Reforms, Pakur, in the district of Santhai Parganas (S.D.O., P.W.D., Pakur, S.P. v. Kali Prasad Seal of Hiranpur, P.S. Hiranpur) is quashed In the result, the appellate order dated the 6th September, 1966 (Annexure I) and the revisional order dated the 30th June, 1967 (Annexure, J.) are quashed.