SHAMBHU NATH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the State Government on 9/15 the February, 1990 as contained in Annexure -9 whereby it was held that two plots as claimed by the petitioner to be sairati had been vested in the State as per provision under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

(2.) THE disputed plots are plot no.1252 having area of 2 bighas 5 khattas 7 dhoors and plot no. 769 having area of 2 bighas 16 khattas 12 dhoors although the lands and plots are tanks. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid two plots along with others have been settled with the grand -father of the petitioner as back as in the year 1329 (sic ''1929?) by the ex -landlord late Baba Harakhpati Singh of Pachahi State. According to the petitioner, after settlement was made the petitioner 'sgrand -father took possession over the same and continued so on payment of rent to the ex -landlord and were granted rent receipts in discharge of payment of rents. After coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act the property in question was never vested in the State of Bihar and the petitioner 'sancestors raiyati was recognized by the State of Bihar and rents were accepted from them on valid discharge of receipts by the State of Bihar. An attempt was made in the year 1971 by the State Government with regard to the settlement of the tank in question considering the same to be Jalkar. Then the petitioner 'sfather Dina Nath Jha filed an application objecting to the attempt of the Revenue Authority. Such objection was raised before the Collector of Darbhanga with the contention that the tanks in question are within the tenancy and raiyati lands of the petitioner 'spredecessor Dina Nath Jha on payment of required rent to the State of Bihar and as such, he should not be con - strued as Sairati The Collector, Darbhan - ga, referred the matter for enquiry to L.R.D.C. The LR.D.C. made a local en - quiry and submitted his report on 11.3,1970. A detailed discussion was made in the report that the petitioner had obtained settlement and continued po

(3.) IT is a settled principle of law that once it has been decided by the State Government that no action is available under Section 4(h) of the Act in respect of any lands or tanks, whatever might be the position, there was no scope to take action under Section 4(g) of the Act because the first and foremost requirement for implementation or application of Section 4(g) of the Act there should be a vesting of the land to the State Government. When vesting was not there and it was decided by the State Government not demand any action under Section 4(h) of the Act then there remains no scope of application under Section 4(g) of the Act as was done in the present case is illegal on the face of it. Moreover, even if any action is to be taken under Section 4(g) of the Act because of any further change in the physical features of the lands in question then there must be given an opportunity of hearing to the party in favour of whom there is already an order under Section 4(h) of the Act, otherwise there will be denial of natural justice. Thus the order contained in Annexure -9 is not only bad in the eye of law but without jurisdiction. Perhaps, both the private - respondent and the State Government got shy of in coming now to support their action which is illegal on the face of it.