DEBI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by six petitioners praying that an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 26th June, 1968 may he quashed by an appropriate writ, and the Revenue athorities including the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh may be directed to pay to the petitioners the balance amount of loan sanctioned to them. Their further prayer is that the Revenue authorities may be restrained from recovering from the petitioners the amount of money already paid to them by means of proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act or otherwise. It has also been prayed that all proceedings started under the Public Demands Recovery Act may be quashed. It may be mentioned at this stage, that the order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 26th June, 1968 has not been made part of the writ application, on the allegation that the petitioners have not been supplied with copies of orders passed by the Board of Revenue.

(2.) The relevant facts, mentioned in the writ application, arc as follows: It is stated that after the Government of Bihar had announced that loans would be advanced to the land reclaimers under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (Central Act No. XIX of 1883), the petitioners had filed separate petitions praying for grant of loan of Rs. 5,000/-to each of them. They had also applied for grant of Rs. 5,000/- as agricultural loan for the purchase of bullocks and agricultural implements. It is stated that the local Revenue authorities had accepted the applications and had recommended the grant. Thereafter the petitioners were directed to undertake conversion of 75 acres of their raiyati land into paddy land and an instalment of Rupees 5,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioners, by order dated the 5th March, 1959, out of the agreed loan of Rs. 35,000/-. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure 4, and this document is the basis of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is alleged further that collateral security had been furnished by the petitioners pledging 275 acres of land. According to the petitioners, the conditions laid down in the order dated the 5th March, 1959, for further payment of instalments of loan had been fulfilled and a completed contract between the petitioners and the State of Bihar had come into existence and the petitioners were entitled to a loan of Rs. 35,000/- from the Government for the implementation of their reclamation scheme. Reference has been made by the petitioners to an order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra, in the District of Huzaribagh, dated the 7th January, 1961, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5, to be read with An-nexiire 4, in support of the petitioners' claim. The petitioners have alleged, in paragraph 18 of the writ application, about certain piecemeal advances of loan made to them, totalling Rs. 14,200/-This is said to have been advanced out of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 35,000/-. It is alleged that for the balance of the unpaid loan, the Additional Collector of Hazaribagh had informed petitioner No. 1, by a letter dated the 27th July, 1962, that action was being taken to obtain approval of the Board of Revenue for sanction of full amount of loan. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexnre 6. The grievance made by the petitioners is that the balance amount of loan has not yet been paid to them to enable them to complete their reclamation scheme. It is alleged by the petitioners that by letter dated the 16th July, 1965, the Additional Collector of Hazaribagh had asked the petitioners to execute a fresh agreement in Form B, giving full particulars of the loans received by them. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexure 7. According to the petitioners, they had complied with the required direction and had furnished the necessary bond in August, 1965; but in spite of their efforts, the balance of the loan has not been paid. It is alleged that instead of giving- further loans to the petitioners, the authorities had instituted certain certificate cases for the recovery of the money already advanced to the petitioners, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 33 of the writ application. It appears that the certificate cases are pending for recovery of Rs. 14,600/-, as an amount of Rs. 400/- had been advanced to the petitioners over and above the loan of Rs. 14,200/- mentioned above. In effect, the petitioners contend that the proceedings for the recovery of the amounts of advances to them were contrary to the terms and conditions on which the loans were granted and they could not have been instituted before the entire amount of loan had been paid and the work completed. The attempt to recover the partially paid loans has been mentioned as an attempt "to confiscation of property" and the non-payment of the balance has been described as offending against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) On behalf of the State of Bihar a counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed and the substance of their contents may be stated now. It is alleged that the seven loan petitions made by the petitioners had been combined and the loan was to be advanced after complying with the requirements made in Annexure 4 of the writ application, dated the 5th March, 1959 (a copy of the same order has been appended as Annexure A of the counter-affidavit), but that at no stage the requirements were complied with. It is alleged that the proper agreement had never been filed in spite of repeated requests and the contention of the petitioners, that, a loan of Rs. 35,000/- had been sanctioned is controverted as wrong. Various details of facts have been mentioned in the two-counter-affidavits, giving the circumstances under which the certificate cases had been instituted.