JITAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State. Inspite of service of notice the respondent No. 6 who is the contesting party neither appeared nor filed counter affidavit.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.7.1991 passed by - the Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih in case No. 174/ 85 -86 whereby he agreed to the proposal/ recommendation made by respondent No. 4 and 5 namely Anchal Adhikari and Land Reforms Deputy Collector and cancelled the zamabandi which was running in the name of the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent -State by one Triveni Kumar, Circle Officer, Giridih. In his counter affidavit the Circle Officer tried to support the order by taking a plea that this Court is not competent Court to interfere with the order and this matter be adjudicated by civil suit. In para 10 of the counter affidavit the Circle Officer stated that the prayer made by the petitioner not to enter the name of respondent No. 6 in the zamabandi register is a prayer which should be made in the injunction petition under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, CPC. It is very sorry state of affair that while controverting the statement made in para 9 and 10 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has made a specific case that after purchase in the year in 1969, their names were mutated and rent receipts were issued by the State of Bihar. It is stated by the Circle Officer he has no knowledge whether the rent receipts and taxes are genuine or not. He further stated that it is a matter of record. The Circle Officer is not supposed to make such irresponsible statement. If the Circle Officer is not aware of rent receipts issued to the petitioner and whether those rent receipts were genuine, he is not at all competent to continue to the post of Circle Officer. I deprecate the irresponsible statement made by the Circle Officer in the counter affidavit.