Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 194 (PAT)

Babulal Sahani v. State Of Bihar

2001-03-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, J.C. to A.A.G. I and learned counsel for contesting respondent no.8. 2. By this writ application, in sum and substance, the petitioners have challenged the settlement of Jalkars falling within the area of operation of Panchayat level co-operative society in favour of respondent no.8. 3. Manifold arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the settlement of Jaikars in favour of respondent no. 8. It is submitted that the petitioners since were the members of Panchayat level cooperative societies, they were eligible for settlement of Jalkar falling within the area of operation of Panchayat in question and the authorities ignoring the recommendations of respondent no.3, settled the Jalkar in question in favour of respondent no. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the settlement is for the financial year 1999- 2002, parwanas are issued yearly and even though respondent no.8 has operated in the sairat in question for three financial years, it is not necessary that again parwana may be issued in its favour in the next financial year commencing from 1st April, 2001. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 8, on the other hand, submitted that respondent nos. 5 to 7 were the Panchayat level co-operative societies and at the time of settlement, Managing Committee of the society were not in existence as they were dissolved and an Administrator was appointed and, therefore, no settlement could have been made with this co-operative society and the respondent no. 8 being a block level society, was eligible for settlement in absence of Panchayat level co-operative societies. Learned counsel further submitted that after settlement of Jalkar in question vide order as contained in Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, concluded agreement is there as contained in Annexure-F as the period of agreement runs from financial year 1999-2002 and since there is no breach of contract in no way, the contract can be rescinded during the subsisting period of settlement. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State respondent no.2, the District Co-operative Officer, East Champaran at Motihari supporting the stand of respondent no. 8. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State respondent no.2, the District Co-operative Officer, East Champaran at Motihari supporting the stand of respondent no. 8. 5. From the pleadings of the parties and at the face of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the question for determination emerges as to whether the concluded contract as contained in Annexure F, executed pursuant to the settlement of Jalkar, is liable to be quashed or as to whether the petitioners are liable to get parwana for the next financial year de hors the contract. 6. It is not in dispute that the Jalkar in question were settled with respondent no. 8 on 16.6.99 and thereafter this writ application was filed on 4.8.99. It is also not in dispute that there is a concluded contract duly executed on behalf of the Governor of Bihar in favour of respondent no.8. It is also not in dispute that at the time of settlement of Jalkar in question, the Managing committee of respondent co-operative society, namely, respondent nos. 5 to 7 was not in existence and an Administrator was appointed who had applied for settlement. 7. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that when there was no cooperative society at the panchayat level, this preference was given to respondent no. 8, a block level co-operative society and after settlement in favour of respondent no.8, an agreement was entered into in between the parties. Nowhere the petitioners challenged the very settlement nor the concluded agreement was challenged before a competent Civil Court. It is true that by way of amendment application, the petitioners have challenged the order of settlement before this Court but by now the respondent no.8 has continued in possession of the Sairats in question since 1999. Since respondent no. 8 is operating in the Jalkar in question for more than two years, equity demands at the face of the concluded agreement that their possession shculd not be disturbed. Secondly there is nothing in the writ application to show that there has been any breach of contract and, therefore, the concluded agreement was liable to be rescinded. Since respondent no. 8 is operating in the Jalkar in question for more than two years, equity demands at the face of the concluded agreement that their possession shculd not be disturbed. Secondly there is nothing in the writ application to show that there has been any breach of contract and, therefore, the concluded agreement was liable to be rescinded. Coming to the next question of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even for the next financial year, parwana may be issued in favour of the petitioners, I find that the contract operates up to 31st March, 2002 and before expiry of the period of contract, it would not be proper to direct for issuance of parwana in favour of the petitioners de hors the contract. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also at the face of the concluded agreement, I am hesitant to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that I am not expressing any opinion for the settfement of Jalkar in question for the next financial years after 2002 and the authorities will be at liberty to settle the same with the viable cooperative society in accordance with law.