Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 144 (PAT)

Anandi Lal Biswas v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-01

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard the parties and perused the impugned order dated 11.10.2001 contained in Annexure-7. 2. A perusal of the said order shows that in Land Ceiling Case No. 1263/73-74 the Additional Collector, Ceiling, Purnea on 11.10.2001 made a proposal for ignoring the order of Additional Collector passed in the same proceeding on 21.12.89 purportedly under sections 37 and 47 of the Land Ceiling Act. As per opinion of the Additional Collector, Ceiling in the impugnsd order, the earlier order dated 21.12.89 was without jurisdiction. On this proposal the Collector of the district gave his concurrence and acceptance on 23.11.2001. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier order of the Additional Collector dated 21.12.89 as contained in Annexure-3 clearly mentions that it was being passed under sections 37 and 47 of the Land Ceiling Act and the same was within jurisdiction because only clerical and arithmatical errors were sought to be corrected on the basis of appellate order passed earlier by the Additional Collector. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a quasi judicial order passed by Additional Collector on 21.12.89 cannot be simply ignored by the Statutory authorities without challenging that order before the higher authorities in accordance with law. 4. A perusal of the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 shows that the Additional Collector has based his recommendation upon the opinion of the Govt. Advocate to the effect that order dated 21.12.89 was without jurisdiction and on such proposal the Collector of the district has given his concurrence. 5. Thus, it is clear that the Additional Collector as well as the Collector of the district have acted in an administrative manner in deciding to ignore the quasi judicial order dated 21.12.89. This they could not have done and rule of law requires that if the higher authorities have found gross illegality in the order dated 21.12.89 then they must challenge that order before Revisional authority, the Board of Revenue because admittedly the Additional Collector had earlier exercised appellate power in the Ceiling proceeding in question. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 is set aside with liberty to the respondent officials and the State of Bihar that, if so advised, they may take appropriate steps in accordance with law against the order dated 21.12.89. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 is set aside with liberty to the respondent officials and the State of Bihar that, if so advised, they may take appropriate steps in accordance with law against the order dated 21.12.89. Any such action should be taken within a reasonable period. In the facts of the case, six months time is granted to the respondent authorities to take steps if they intend to challenge the order dated 21.12.89. Otherwise, they must implement the said order as it exists. 7. This writ application is allowed with the aforementioned observations.