BISHWANATH KEDIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ application claim that their father had taken settlement of about 200 acres of land in the district of Champaran from the Ramnagar Raj in the year 1944 in respect of which a registered deed of lease was executed on the 18th of May, 1947, proceedings were started against the petitioners' father under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950 hereinafter called 'the Act'). The proceedings were dropped by the Deputy Collector in-charge Land Reforms by his order dated 22-10-1963, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ application. He did not annul the settlement An appeal was taken to the Collector. According to the petitioner's case, it was filed much beyond the prescribed time. The Collector allowed the appeal by his order dated 14-6-1967, copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ application. He annulled the settlement under Section 4(h) of the Act. His order eventually was confirmed by the State Government under the Second Proviso to Clause (h) of Section 4 of the Act on the 23rd of January, 1968, a copy of which order is annexure 7 to the writ application. The petitioners, in the meantime, however, had moved the Commissioner asking him to exercise his power under Section 4-A of the Act in July, 1967. A copy of the order-sheet of the revision case before the Commissioner is annexure 8 to the writ application. It shows that the revision was admitted on 22-12-1967 and further proceedings in furtherance of the order of the Collector were stayed. While admitting the case, the Commissioner had fixed 22-3-1908 as the date in it. On this date when the case was taken up, a letter from the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the revenue department, which was placed before the Commissioner, showed that the Government had already passed orders confirming the order of the Collector under Section 4 (h) of the Act annulling the settlement of the land. Upon this the Commissioner took the view:--

(2.) Section 4 (h) of the Act provides as follows:

(3.) As we have said above, we do not think it necessary or advisable to say a word about the merit of the petitioners' case one way or the other, as we think that the Commissioner by taking an erroneous view has refused to apply his own mind to the matter and has thereby refused to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 4-A of the Act. The matter must, therefore, go back to him for passing such order as he thinks proper to pass in the light of our decision or for making such report to the State Government as he thinks fit and proper to make.