BALRAM HAZAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 3.7.1995 passed by the Circle Officer, Sonahatu directing restoration of land in favour of respondent No. 3.

(3.) ANNEXURE 1 series are the copies of Hukumnama and the copy of the rent receipts showing settlement of land payment of rent to the Ex -landlord. The petitioner also filed rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar after vesting of the Zamindari upto date i.e., 1994. , From perusal of the restoration order passed by the Scheduled Area Regulation Officer in case No. 96/74 -75, it appears that the Regulation Officer after considering the Hukumnama coupled with series of rent receipts came to the conclusion that the land was settled by the Ex - landlord in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1944 and 1945 and all the rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar are genuine documents. The Regulation Officer further held that it is not a case of fraudulent transfer of the land belonging to the member of scheduled tribe or illegal dispossession of the member of scheduled tribe. Consequently the restoration application was rejected. It is worth to be noted here that against the said order the respondent No. 3 did not file any appeal or revision challenging the said Order. On the contrary after about 20 years in the year 1994 the same respondent No. 3 filed an application under Bihar Money Lenders Act 1974 for delivery of possession of the land on the ground of illegal possession of the petitioner on the basis of mortgage as a Bhugud Bandhak Mortgage. The Circle Officer ignoring the order passed under the provisions of Section 71 -A of the CNT Act illegally recorded a finding that the settlement was not valid and therefore, it shall be deemed that possession of the petitioner was on the basis of Bhugud Bandhak Mortgage. Prima facie the finding recorded by the Circle Officer 13 illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. The Circle Officer failed to consider that the application under the Bihar Money Lenders Act itself was not at all maintainable and entertainable. The Circle Officer has no jurisdiction to re -consider the matter again when the order passed in restoration proceeding attained its finality. The impugned Order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.