Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 27 (JHR)

Jagdish Sao v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-16

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by Jagdish Sao and Rameshwar Ram against notice, dated 5th December, 1992, as also the order, dated 7th August, 1980 passed by the respondont. Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) in Hazaribagh Case Nos. 1/75-76; 2/78-79; 1/76-77 and 1/79-80 under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (BLR Act). 2. By original order, dated 7th August, 1980, the respondent-LRDC held that the lands in question were settled by ex-landlord after the date of vesting, also observed that the settlement was made with a view to obtaining higher compen- sation for defeating the provisions of the BLR Act. The petitioners having intimated of the decision, vide impugned notice, dated 5th December, 1992 (An-nexures 6 and 6/a), challenged both the notices and the common order, dated 7th August, 1980. 3. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 4. According to the petitioners, their respective lands were settled in favour of their ancestors by the ex-landlord by hukumnama issued in the years 1928 and 1929. The first petitioner, Jagdish Sao, son of late Laxman Sao while referred the land measuring 5.02 acres of Khata No. 542 situated in village Khapariawan on the basis hukumnama, dated 8.11.1928, the other petitioner Rameshwar Ram, son of late Sohan Ram claims right over land measuring 5.7 acres of Plot No. 542 of village-Khapariawan on the basis of hukumnama of the year 1929. According to them, some complaint was filed by one Sohar Sao and others, on which a proceeding under Section 4(h) of BLR Act was initiated against a number of persons, including the fathers of petitioners (late Laxman Sao and late Sohan Ram). It was registered as Hazaribagh Case Nos. 1/75-76; 2/78-79; and "1/79-80, but the petitioners being minor had no knowledge of the same. Suddenly, when they received notices issued on 4th/5th December, 1992 and informed that their right and title over the lands in question, have been taken away by virtue of the impugned order passed under Section 4(h). After obtaining the certified copy, they could come to know that in the said proceeding, no reasonable opportunity was given to their fathers and by cryptic order, the setthements were annulled. 5. After obtaining the certified copy, they could come to know that in the said proceeding, no reasonable opportunity was given to their fathers and by cryptic order, the setthements were annulled. 5. According to the counsel for the State, the proceedings under Section 4(h) of the BLR Act were initiated, in accordance with law, and order passed after notice and hearing the parties. The petitioners never acquired any right over the properties since settlements here made by ex-landlord after the date of vesting with a view to defeating the provisions of BLR Act and for higher compensation, they were rightly annulled. Reliance was placed on one or other part of the impugned order, dated 7th August, 1989 to show that the LRDC, Hazaribagh came to a conclusion on appraisal of other materials on record. 6. From the common order-sheet of Case Nos, 1/75-76; 2/78-79; and 1/79-80, it appears that the notices were issued on a number of persons while proceeding under Section 4(h) was initiated. Many of the settlees appeared and filed show cause. However, the order-sheet does not make it clear as to on a particular date which settlee appeared and filed evidence which show that the same is cryptic. For example, in the order-sheet, dated 15th September, 1979, when it is mentioned that both the sets of parties appeared simultaneously, it is also mentioned that one R,P. Rana filed hajri and submitted records. 7. Nothing specific mentioned with regard to the fathers of petitioners late Laxman Sao and/or late Sohan Ram as to whether they appeared and filed show cause, though from the impugned order, dated 7th August, 1980, it appears that only four sets of show cause replies were filed, one by Hukum Rain and Lal Muni Teli; other by Roshan Ram and third by heirs of Kishori Lal Rana and the 4th by Tulsi Prasad Mishra. The LRDC came to a conclusion that the lands in question were settled by ex-land lord after the date of vesting, but he failed to rely on any particular evidence to come to conclusion qua sine such particular finding. According to the petitioners, their settlements were made in the years 1928 and 1929 in respect to which they have enclosed photostat copies as An-nexures to the writ petition. According to the petitioners, their settlements were made in the years 1928 and 1929 in respect to which they have enclosed photostat copies as An-nexures to the writ petition. No specific date given as to when the settlement was made, nor anything discussed relating to compensation as was allowed in favour of, the ex-landlord. Without discussion of any such evidence, in the last portion, mere finding was given that the ex-landlord settled the lands after the date of vesting to obtain higher compensation. Though the order-sheet is of 21 pages and the order, dated 7th August, 1990 is of 8 pages, but no specific evidence cited, but a finding given merely giving a reference of certain judgment and decree passed in suit, without making it clear as to who were the parties in such suits, including the fathers of petitioners. On 15th September, 1979, the case was ordered to be listed on 25th October, 1979. However, no order recorded on 25th October, 1979 or thereafter, but straightway finding given on 7th August, 1980, though no such date was fixed. It is also not made clear as to when one or other party led evidence as cited in the common impugned order, dated 7th August, 1990, which also raises doubt relating to manner in which the order was passed. 8. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order, dated 7th August, 1980 passed in Hazaribagh Case Nos. 1/75-76; 2/78-79; 1/76-77; and 1/79-80 cannot be upheld, nor the notices as issued, vide letters both dated 5th December, 1992, as contained in Annexures 6 and 6/a. They are, accordingly, set aside and the case is remitted to the respondents. The LRDC, Hazaribagh is to determine the issue after notice and hearing the parties, including the petitioners, taking into consideration the evidence as may be led by one or other party. 9. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there-shall be no order as to costs. 10. Writ petition allowed.