Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1064 (PAT)

Lakhan Lal @ Lakshman Lal v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-01

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment 1. On the matters being called Counsel, who has filed this appeal did not appear. He is reported to be on strike on a call given by the "Co-ordination Committee" of the Bar Associations to boycott the Chief Justices Court. On this aspect there are orders of this court dated 18.9.2002, 30.9.2002 and 1.10.2002. In the circumstances, this court was left with no option but to consider the matter on the record on merits. 2. The State Counsel Mr. S. A. Hussain, S.C. 6, states that notice has not been served on this appeal. He may notice the case as the matter cannot be passed over. A photo copy of the brief will be given by the Registrar General to the State Counsels establishment. 3. The petitioner-appellant Lakhan Lal filed an application on 8 July, 2000 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Nalanda, Rajgir to fix the rent of land as also to deposit the rent as may be fixed. He also sought mutation in his name. On his application a rent fixation case no. 9 of 2000-2001 was registered. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms rejected the case on the ground that unless the auction sale of the land in question is confirmed either by the District Board, Patna or the District Board, Nalanda, the rent fixation cannot be allowed. Consequently, the petitioner-appellant filed an appeal. The contention of the petitioner-appellant was that in the proceedings before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, when the order dated 10 January, 2001 had been passed neither the petitioner-appellant was present nor his counsel. This order is appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The date of the order is 10 January, 2001 but it has been signed by the authority concerned on 7 April, 2001. 4. It does not appear from the order that it had been passed after hearing Lakhan Lal or his counsel. This is one aspect of the matter. The next aspect is that the appeal was filed to impugn this order, in effect, making a grievance that the matter be considered on merits either by the appellate authority or by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, but it was certified as beyond limitation. Perhaps, this was a technicality which the petitioner-appellant Lakhan Lal could hardly explain. The order is dated 10 January, 2001 but it was singed on 7 April, 2001. 5. Perhaps, this was a technicality which the petitioner-appellant Lakhan Lal could hardly explain. The order is dated 10 January, 2001 but it was singed on 7 April, 2001. 5. Thus, if any appeal had not been tiled from the first date 10 January 2001 within the limitation and was filed on some day in April, 2001 the petitioner-appellant could not be faulted. 6. In the circumstances, two questions arise in the present matter. Firstly, if the Deputy Collector Land Reforms had to pass an order in the absence of the petitioner-appellants counsel he should have passed an order on merits giving reasons as to why application not be dismissed. The order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 10 January, 2001 (or 7April, 2001), does not disclose any objectivity. Subsequently, if the order is passed within three months, the petitioner-appellant Lakhan Lal could not be faulted. In the circumstances, both the orders that is of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 10 January, 2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 14 June, 2002 dismissing the appeal as beyond limitation are quashed and set aside. The matter will stand remitted and restored to case no. 6 of 2000-2001 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms for being examined afresh after giving due notice to the petitioner-appellant and the case will be finalised after hearing the parties on merits. 7. For the reasons which have been given above, the order of the learned judge dated 29 August, 2002 on CWJC No. 8461 of 2002 : Lakhan Lal V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. is set aside. 8. Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and is allowed.