Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 35 (PAT)

Rohini Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Bihar

1986-01-29

U.P.SINGH

body1986
JUDGMENT : U.P. Singh, J. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the ORDER :s dated 19.1.1976 and 11.1.1980 contained in Annexures-5 and 7 respectively. By an ORDER :dated 19.1.1976, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) annulled the settlement of 4.17 acres of land alleged to have been settled with the petitioner by the ex-landlord in the year 1936. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad agreed with the recommendation of the L.R.D.C. that the alleged settlement should be annulled under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land, Reforms Act. 2. The short question which falls for consideration is whether respondents 2 and 3 had the jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act in respect of the settlement of a land in the year 1936. The provision of section 4(h) of the Act may be noticed: "4(h): The Collector shall have power to make inquires in respect of any transfer including the settlement, or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made and at any time after the first day, of January, 1946, with the object to defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation there under, the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming it and takes possession of such property on such terms as may appear, to the Collector to be fair and equitable." 3. On a plain reading of the provisions contained in section 4(h) of the Act, it is obvious that the Collector, while exercising his power to make enquires in respect of any transfer, must be satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the 1st January, 1946. Further, such transfer must be made with the object of defeating any provision of the Act or with a view to cause loss to the state or obtaining higher compensation there under. After being so satisfied, the collector will then give reasonable notice to the parties concerned and hear them before annulling such transfer. 4. Further, such transfer must be made with the object of defeating any provision of the Act or with a view to cause loss to the state or obtaining higher compensation there under. After being so satisfied, the collector will then give reasonable notice to the parties concerned and hear them before annulling such transfer. 4. On the fact of this case, it is undisputed that the L.R.D.C. annulled the settlement of a land made in the year 1936 and, therefore, he acted without jurisdiction and beyond the powers conferred under section 4(h) of the Act. 5. Further, from the ORDER :of the L.R.D.C. passed under section 4(h) of the Act, it appears that condition precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction in annulling the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act was not fulfilled. Before exercising the jurisdiction under section 4(h) of the Act, the L.R.D.C. had himself to be satisfied and arrived at his own conclusion that the transfer was made with the object of defeating any provision of this Act or causing logs to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder. No such finding appears to have been recorded. He is the adjudicatory body and, therefore, he could not recommend for such annulment which so appears from his ORDER :. He also failed to consider the fact that the State had accepted rent from the petitioner. Reference has also been made to a JUDGMENT : of the Additional District Judge, Dhanbad dated 11.9.1978 passed in Title Appeal No. 57 of 1976. The said appeal had been preferred by the petitioner for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession in respect of the land in question. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in which the State was also a party. 6. From the ORDER :of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, it appears that he has not at all considered the basic question whether the L.R.D.C. could annul the proceeding in respect of settlement of the land made in the year 1936. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner agreed with the recommendation of the L.R.D.C. that the settlement should be annulled under section 4(h) of the Act. As already held, the L.R.D.C. could not be the recommending authority. He was an adjudicatory boby and he had to arrive at his own conclusion in accordance with the terms of section 4(h) of the Act. 7. As already held, the L.R.D.C. could not be the recommending authority. He was an adjudicatory boby and he had to arrive at his own conclusion in accordance with the terms of section 4(h) of the Act. 7. In this view, the petitioner must succeed on the sole ground that the annulment of any settlement made prior to 1st January, 1946 was beyond the purview of section 4(h) of the Act and, therefore, the ORDER :s of the L.R.D.C. dated 19.1.1976 and the Deputy Commissioner Dhanbad, dated 11.1.1980 contained in Annexures 5 and 7 were passed without jurisdiction. Both the ORDER :s are accordingly quashed. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed but there will be no ORDER :as to costs.