Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 142 (PAT)

Bhola Jha v. State Of Bihar

2005-02-10

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for respondent no. 8 though name of the counsel appearing for respondent no. 8 is appearing in the daily cause list. Time was also granted to private-respondents as well as State for filing counter-affidavit. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.1992 passed by the D.C.L.R., Birpur, in Rent Fixation Case no. 5 of 1992-93 creating Jamabandi in favour of respondent no. 8, also the order dated 29.12.1997 passed by the Addl. Collector, Supaul, in Misc. Revenue Appeal Case no. 137/95/115/97 and the order passed by the revisionai authority dated 16.8.2000 passed in Mutation Revision Case no. 31 of 1997-98 (Annexure-4). 3. These orders have been challenged on the ground that jamabandi created in the name of the petitioner on 1.7.1969 has been cancelled by the impugned order after 23 years without issuing any notice or without assigning any reason. It has further been submitted that the orders are without jurisdiction as the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation itself without considering that against an ex parte order the petitioner preferred an appeal when he came to know about the cancellation of the jamabandi. The revisionai authority failed to consider this aspect and the revision was dismissed. It has also been submitted that the land has been recorded in the name of the petitioner in the consolidation operation and khata no. 144 and khesra no. 966 has been carved out from old khata no. 18 and old khesra no. 866 by the impugned orders even this fact has been overlooked. The D.C.L.R., Birpur, was not authorised to decide this matter because the land in question was the subject matter of Triveniganj Sub Division, after bifurcation of Birpur Sub Division in the year 1992, but the D.C.L.R. with malafide intention has passed the order. As such, the order passed is without jurisdiction. 4. On consideration of the fact that jamabandi once created in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled for no specific reason, is sufficient to quash that order. The Revisionai Authority as well as the appellate authority failed to consider the error apparent in the order passed by the Circle Officer. As such, the order passed is without jurisdiction. 4. On consideration of the fact that jamabandi once created in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled for no specific reason, is sufficient to quash that order. The Revisionai Authority as well as the appellate authority failed to consider the error apparent in the order passed by the Circle Officer. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation, and the revisional authority also refused to consider that the D.C.L.R. had passed the order without issuing notice to the petitioner. 5. The order dated 10.7.1992 passed by the D.C.L.R. in Rent Fixation Case no. 5 of 1992-93 and the order dated 29.12.1997 passed by the Addl. Collector, Supaul, in Misc. Revenue Appeal Case no 137/95/ 115/97 as well as the order dated 16.8.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner, Koshi Division, in Mutation Revision Case no. 31 of 1997-98 are quashed. This application is allowed. 6. The matter is remitted back to the Circle Officer, Chhatapur, Supaul, for restoration of jamabandi which was running in the name of the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned orders by the Anchal Adhikari Chettarpur vide order dated 1.7.1969 passed in Miscellaneous Revenue Case no. 56 of 1967-68, 12 of 1968- 69, 8 of 1969-70. 7. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.