BRAHMDEO MANDAL SON OF LATE BILAS MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by filing this writ application, seeks quashing of the order dated 28.12.2005, passed by the Respondent No. 3, the Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, as contained in Annexure -T, whereby the order dated 14.10.2004 had been reviewed and a direction was given to delete the holding created in the name of the petitioner by his predecessor in office.

(2.) I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case. It had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the land in question originally belonged to one Pandit Chiranjivi Mishra, who had transferred the same in favour of Smt. Sarla Rani. The name of Smt. Sarla Rani was mutated in the records of the State of Bihar and rent was accepted from her and in acknowledgment thereof, the State of Bihar had issued rent receipt in her name. It is stated that khatiyan was finally published showing her raiyat. In support of submission, learned counsel had placed reliance upon a copy of the khatiyan, brought on record as Annexure - '2 ' to this application. It had further been submitted that the land in question had been purchased by the petitioner by a registered deed of sale executed on 24.10.2002 by one Vivek Narayan, son of aforesaid Smt. Sarla Rani. The copy of the sale deed has been brought on record as Annexure - '3 ' to this writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation for mutation of his name in its B.M.C. record. A general notice was issued and inquiry report was also called from the Tax Collector concerned. It had been contended that few persons filed objection in the aforesaid Mutation Case on the ground that the land actually belonged to "Burhanath Temple Trust", however, no document could be produced on their behalf and on the basis of the records produced by the petitioner as well as the inquiry report of the concerned Tax Collector, the Chief Executive Officer passed the order dated 14.10.2004, as contained in Annexure - '5 ' whereby a direction was issued for creation of holding in the name of the petitioner. However, subsequently, the Respondent No. 4, claiming to be the President of "Burhanath Ghat Bachao Samiti" had filed an application for review of the earlier order dated 14.10.2004, before the Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. Petitioner appeared and raised his objection. It had been held by the Chief Executive Officer, Respondent No.3, that the land in question was not entered in the holding register of the Corporation and the price of more than 2 bighas of land could not only be Rs. 59,500/ -. It had also been found by the Chief Executive Officer, during his spot verification, that there were steps constructed over the concerned "Ghat" and there were evidence of performing "Puja" etc. Thus, he had reviewed the earlier order and issued a fresh direction for deleting the holding, opened in the name of the petitioner. The aforesaid decision, as contained in Annexure -1, is under challenge in this writ application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is erroneous and is also without jurisdiction as the Chief Executive Officer did not have any power to review the order passed by his predecessor. It was submitted that by S.O. 571 dated 24th April, 1981, all Sections of Chapter III to XXIX of Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. It was also submitted that from a perusal of the Act as well as Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, it would be manifest that the statute concerned had not conferred any power upon the Chief Executive Officer to review any order passed either by himself or by his predecessor. The only power of review is contained under Section 150 of the Chapter -X of the Act, however, the same is available to the persons who are dissatisfied with the amount of tax assessed upon him or the valuation or assessment of any holding, or who disputes his occupation of any holding, or his liability to be assessed. However, in the present case, the petitioner had not filed any review application being dissatisfied with the amount assessed upon him or for any reasons which were available under Section 150 of the Act.