DEONANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the orders of the Anchal Adhikari of Town Anchal Gaya (Annexure V) and of the Additional Collector, Gaya (Annexure VI). By these two orders the petition of the petitioners for fixation of fair rent in respect of the lands of schedules A and B has been rejected. Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed this application for quashing the aforesaid order. .

(2.) The petitioners after vesting of the Zamindari under the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 6(1) of the Act before the Anchal Adhikari of town Anchal, Gaya in respect of the agricultural lands mentioned in schedules A and B of this writ petition. Regarding schedule B land their claim was that they purchased this land in execution of two rent decrees and obtained delivery of possession in 1943 and since then they were in cultivating possession thereof. Regarding schedule A land the claim of the petitioners was, that this was their Bakast land and they prayed for fixation of fair rent in respect of schedule A land as well. During the course of the proceeding for fixation of fair rent, as objection was filed by some of the opposite parties on the 22nd July, 1960, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure II of this petition. In the aforesaid petition they claimed title and possession over the disputed land. Thereafter the Anchal Adhikari passed" the impugned order rejecting the petition which was affirmed by the Additional Collector, Gaya as stated above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that although no specific claim was made in regard to the land mentioned in Schedule A having an area of 30 bighas and odd neither the Anchal Adhikari nor the Additional Collector has taken any notice of this fact and committed an error of record in proceeding on the footing that the entire land of this schedule also was auction purchased land like schedule B land. Learned Counsel urged that the claim of the opposite party in the show cause is also vague in respect of schedule B land. It has been further urged that the Anchal Adhikari has based his conclusion merely on the fact that not defeat the right of the peti these lands are recorded in Register II in the names of different persons other than the petitioners and rent receipt issued to them. It has also been urged that inspite of general notice no objection to the fixation of fair rent in favour of the petitioners has been filed by many others who are recorded in Register II. A reference to the order of the Anchal Adhikari and the Additional Collector justifies the criticism of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. There is no dispute that the disputed lands appertained to the. Zarnindari of the petitioners and the issue of rent receipt by the State of Bihar and the entry of the names of these persons in Register II and opening a demand in their names by the Land Reforms Authorities, subsequent to the vesting of the Estate of the petitioners in the State of Bihar would not defeat the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, if the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land on the date of vesting. The settlement of the land in possession of an intermediary as referred to in Section 6 of the Act being a statutory one, is automatic on the vesting of the estate and that cannot be jeopardised by any action on the part of the Karamchari or Anchal Adhikari in opening a demand or issuing rent receipts or recording any other person in Register II in respect of these lands. It was necessary that the question of fixation of fair rent in respect of different khatas of the two schedules should have been specifically considered and then decided according to law. This obviously has not been done and in view of the aforesaid illegalities in the impugned orders, the order of the Anchal Adhikari (Annexure V) and the order of the Additional Collector (Annexure VI) have to be quashed and the case sent back to the Anchal Adhikari for considering the claim of the petitioners for fixation of fair rent in respect of the lands of different khatas in accordance with law.