Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 383 (PAT)

Jagarnath Mishra v. State of Bihar

1991-09-16

B.K.ROY, I.P.SINGH

body1991
JUDGMENT B.K. ROY & I.P. SINGH, JJ. Through this application which was filed on 19.2.1991 a prayer has been made to quash the notice dated 17.11.1990 of the Collector, Saharsa (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure 4, issued to the petitioner to show cause why the proceeding in Land Ceiling Case No. 11/1973-74, be not reopened under section 45B of the Act for the reason stated therein on the grounds of resjudicata and malafide. The most question raised by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that earlier also the proceeding in question was reopened vide order dated 1.5.1978 (Annexure 2) on the same facts stated in the notice in question and the matter was decided by order dated 29.9.1980 as contained in Annexure 3 No revision or appeal having been preferred against the aforementioned order dated 29.9.1980 the matter in issue became final and operates as resjudicata and accordingly the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. He also took us to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit dated 29.4.1991 filed today on behalf of the respondents wherein while replying the statements made in paragraph 17 of the writ application, it has been stated that the case was reopened on the same ground. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned G. P. No.7 very fairly accepts the legal position, He, however submits that the decision was earlier taken up hurredly. Mr. Jha also submits that even an crronious order operates as resjudicata. The earlier order in absence of its setting aside became final. The principle of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata applies to proceedings under the Bihar Land reforms (fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplusland) Act, 1961, as well. The submission of Mr. Jha, therefore that the earlier decision is operative as resjudicata is therefore accepted. We, however, do not feel necessary to decide the question of malafide as this petition succeeds on the ground aforesaid. In the result this writ application is allowed impugned notice, as contained in Annexure 4 is, accordingly, quashed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances however there shall be no order as cost. Application allowed.