SHAILESHWARDHARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.5 and the State.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20th of October, 2001 passed in Case No. 94 of 2001, vide Annexure-5, whereby the objection filed by respondent no.5 under sub-section (2) of Section 103A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was allowed ignoring the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, whereby the objection was rejected by order dated 27.7.2000 passed in Case No. 1/99, vide Annexure-3. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order contained in letter dated 1.4.2002 (Annexure- 8) passed by respondent no.2, whereby he refused to entertain the application of the petitioners alleging grievances that respondent no.3 had no authority to pass such order as Bihta Anchal was not entrusted to respondent no.3 for disposing of the revision preferred against the order rejecting the objection.

(3.) it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that notwithstanding the fact that respondent no.3 Shri Bharat Ram, the Charge Officer was not competent to dispose of the revision filed by respondent no.5 since the dispute in question arises out of Bihta Anchal and for deciding the revision cases arising out of the said Anchal one Sri Sheo Narain Ojha, another Charge Officer was entrusted, which would appear on perusal of the order issued by respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. It is further submitted that said respondeat no.3 passed the order, as contained in Annexure-5, without considering the case of the petitioners. The said Charge Officer although took into consideration the documents filed by respondent no.5, but did not consider and take notice of the documents filed by the petitioners. In other way, the submission is that notwithstanding that the respondent no.3 had no authorisation has passed the order without due application of mind and that too without considering the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer rejecting the objection of respondent no.5.