Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 648 (JHR)

Chandra Shekhar Bhattacharjee v. State Of Bihar

2004-06-28

N.N.TIWARI, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

body2004
JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The Writ Petitioners challenge the order dated 14.8.1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 1991-1992. By that order, the Deputy Commissioner, being an Appellate Authority, reversed the order dated 22.3.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara in Land Ceiling Case No. 26/1985 cancelling the settlement of land in favour of certain persons as surplus land taken possession of under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act in respect of one Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee. 2. Proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act were initiated against one Nirmal Bhattareharjee who is the adopted son of Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee and 30 acres of land was determined as being his ceiling area, in addition to certain exempted extents. This was done after a draft settlement was published, objections were heard and a final notification of surplus lands was made. The surplus lands vested in the Slate. The said lands were distributed among 22 persons. 3. Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee had two wives. Annapurna Debya and Pravash Kamini Debya and he had also a concubine, Brajbala. Annapurna adopted Nirmal Bhattacharjee as authorized by her husband. It appears that a case was initiated against Nirmal Bhattachaijee and the celling area was determined. It may be noted here that neither the two wives or the concubine. Brajbala, had any issue through Govind Kinker Bhattacharjee and in that situation that order governed the estate of Nirmal Bhattacharjee, 4. After the final settlement was published under the Act and the vesting took place, one Mahadev Bhattacharjee Hied a suit in the Civil Court claiming to be another adopted son of Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee through Prabash Kamini Debya. who was the first wife of Govind Kinker Bhattacharjee. Nirmal Bhattacharjee who was the defendant in the suit disputed the adoption set up by Mahadev Bhattacharjee, and pleaded that Prabhash Kamini had not been authorized by Govind Kinker Bhattacharjee to adopt a son and in any event, the adoption was invalid in law. 5. The trial Court on contest, held that the adoption set up by Mahadev Bhattacharjee, the plaintiff in the suit for partition, was not proved and the trial Court dismissed tlie suit. Mahadev Bhattacharjee filed an appeal before the District Court. While the appeal was pending, a compromise was entered into between Mahadev Bhattacharjee and Nirmal Bhattacharjee. 5. The trial Court on contest, held that the adoption set up by Mahadev Bhattacharjee, the plaintiff in the suit for partition, was not proved and the trial Court dismissed tlie suit. Mahadev Bhattacharjee filed an appeal before the District Court. While the appeal was pending, a compromise was entered into between Mahadev Bhattacharjee and Nirmal Bhattacharjee. As per the compromise, Nirmal Bhattachaijee recognized the status of Mahadev Bhattacharjee as an adopted son of Prabhash Kamini Debya. He also agreed that the properties which he had already surrendered in terms of the notification under the Bihar Land Ceiling Act would stand allotted to the share of Mahadev Bhattacharjee as an heir of Govind Kinker Bhattacharjee. The compromise further provided that the 30 acres of land and the exempted lands allowed to be retained by Nirmal Bhattacharjee in the proceeding under the Ceiling Act. will be the lands allotted to the share of Nirmal Bhattacharjee. The compromise was accepted by the District Court apparently without applying its mind to see whether it was an attempt Lo defeat the Ceiling Act or was not one contrary to law. 6. On the basis of that decree, the heirs of Mahadev Bhattacharjee sought to raise a claim before the Authority under the Ceiling Act. As directed by this Court in that behalf the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara took up the claim. Without going into the relevant aspects and solely on tlie basis of the compromise decree, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara re-opened or re-viewed the final publication and held that the lands settled with various strangers, as surplus vesting in the State, are liable to be restored to the children of Mahadeo Bhattacharjee. It may be noted that he did not even seek the previous consent of the concerned higher authority in terms of Section 60 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act before he re-viewed or re-opened the order. The aggrieved assignees of the surplus land filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer contending that the compromise decree was vitiated by collusion and could not be given effect to by the authorities under the Ceiling Act, that the compromise was entered into after the final publication and distribution of the surplus land and that it was liable to be ignored. The appellate authority accepted their contentions and reversing the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dismissed the claim of (lie legal representatives of Mahadev Bhattacharjee. The appellate decision thus rendered is challenged before us in this proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the facts, it is clear that the suit was filed and the compromise decree at the appellate stage was entered into after the final publication in the Celling case determining the excess to be surrendered by the adopted son of Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee. It is seen that the lands were distributed in terms of the Act among 22 landless persons by that time. Any proceeding after final notification was published and the lands distributed after following the procedure laid down by the Act, has normally to be ignored. That apart what happened here was that claims was based on a compromise decree entered into at the appellate stage in a suit which had been dismissed by the trial Court on a finding that the adoption set up by the plaintiff therein, the predecessor of the claimants was not established. A compromise decree is only a contract between the parties, no doubt, approved by the Court. But the fact remains that the District Court did not even consider whether the compromise was in accordance with law, so as to be accepted in terms of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts relied on by the appellate authority clearly indicate that this was a collusive attempt by Nirmal Bhattacharjee somehow to grab the lands which had been surrendered by him in terms of the Act after the issue of the final notification. The appellate authority was justified in holding that the compromise decree has to be held to be collusive. We have also no doubt that, the so called compromise decree cannot be the foundation for reopening the proceeding. 8. Thus on the whole we are satisfied that the order of the appellate authority does not suffer any error apparent on the face of the record justifying interference by this Court. We, therefore, uphold the decision of the appellate authority in Review Misc. Appeal No. 21/1991-92 and dismiss this Writ Petition.