SURENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.12006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2-Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 205 of 1987-88 filed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, whereby the respondent no. 2 allowed the revision, setting aside the order dated 07.09.1987 passed by the respondent no. 3-Additional Collector, Deoghar, with a direction to the respondent no. 4-Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar, to decide the case afresh after adopting the required procedure under the provisions of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Budhu Rai and Most. Dewani Ghatwalin were the recorded tenants of J.B. No. 53, Mouza-Morne, P.S.Mohanpur. Donor Raj Kishore Rai, Churaman Rai and Munsi Rai were the sons of one of the recorded tenant Most. Dewani Ghatwalin. As per the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act, the donors Raj Keshar Rai, Churaman Rai and Munsi Rai donated 5.73 acres of land of J.B. No. 53 to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee through Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra dated 201966 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the Bhoodan Yagna Committee settled the said land in favour of Ram Keshwar Rai, Nageshwar Rai, Jugnu Rai and Ram Shankar Rai. It is further submitted that on perusal of the order dated 26.01977 passed by the Revenue Officer in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), it would appear that the Danpatra was not objected by any one and thus, the same was confirmed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar. The said fact indicates that the concerned authority has already complied with the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act. It is also submitted that the father of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 namely, Kaleshwar Rai filed an appeal being Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 before the Additional Collector, Deoghar challenging the order dated 26.01977 passed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar, in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The Additional Collector, Deoghar vide order dated 07.09.1987 rejected the Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 on the grounds that the said appeal was barred by limitation and the dispute related to the jurisdiction of the civil court. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.09.1987 passed by the Additional Collector, Deoghar in Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86, preferred revision being R.M.R. No. 205 of 1987-88 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and the learned Commissioner allowed the revision application vide order dated 26.12.2006 and directed the Revenue Officer to decide the case afresh after adopting essential procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Commissioner committed serious error in holding that Churaman Rai did not sign the Danpatra. However, on perusal of the said Danpatra (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), it would be evident that said Churaman Rai signed the Danpatra. The learned Commissioner further committed error in holding that the Danpatra was not published, but from perusal of the order dated 26.01977 passed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73, it would be evident that no one had filed any objection in that regard. The said fact goes to show that there was proper publication of the Danpatra under Sec. 11 of the Act. It is also submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the donor had given names of four persons in the Danpatra for the settlement, but from perusal of the Danpatra, it transpires that the donor had not given any name for settlement. In view of the said facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R No. 205 of 1987-88 being erroneous, is liable to be set-aside.