Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 971 (PAT)

Raja Ram Rai v. Collector Of Begusarai

2005-11-09

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 4. However, none appears on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner who claims himself as a privileged tenant in terms of Section 2(j) of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has challenged the order passed by the Collector under the Act cancelling parcha issued in his favour under the provisions of the Act. 3. Precisely it is contended by Mr. Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner that the parcha issued under the Act since was final, it could not have been reviewed by the Collector or its subordinates prior to amendment of the Act in 1989 and thus the orders passed by the authorities are wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 4. Certain facts would be necessary for disposal of the present writ application. The petitioners, as it appears, had applied for issuance of Basgit Parcha with regard to a piece of land measuring 8 decimals pertaining to Thana No. 325, Tauji No. 3677, Khata No. 23 and Khesra No. 206 situate in village Churaman Chak in the district of Begusarai. The application filed by the petitioner was entertained by the Collector and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by Amin and Karmchari, the Anchai Adhikari recommended for issuance of Basgit Parcha in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. The recommendation of the Anchai Adhikari was concurred by the Collector of the district and ultimately parcha was issued. On objection being filed by the respondent no. 4, the land holder for whose land parcha was issued to the petitioner, the Collector reviewed the earlier order issuing basgit parcha in favour of the petitioner and ultimately cancelled the same and directed for his ejectment. The order of cancellation thus has been challenged by the petitioner by this writ application. 5. The moot question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the Collector can review his earlier order or as to whether wrong order passed by the Collector which has been reviewed wrongly, can be affirmed by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. 5. The moot question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the Collector can review his earlier order or as to whether wrong order passed by the Collector which has been reviewed wrongly, can be affirmed by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. Shyam, learned counsel submitted that basgit parcha was issued in favour of the petitioner after due enquiry and nobody objected of the petitioner being a privileged tenant and the authorities under the Act thus issued basgit parcha in favour of the petitioner upon which he was having his dwelling house. Learned counsel further submitted that the authorities had no jurisdiction at all to review their earlier order. 7. Mr. Shiva Nanda Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner never claimed to be a privileged tenant under the Act nor it is discernible from his application filed for issuance of basgit parcha which has been placed on record and marked as Annexure A to the counter affidavit and thus the whole exercise rendered by the Collector of the district was wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Roy further contended that the matter ultimately since has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court should see the propriety of the orders passed by the authorities issuing basgit parcha and reviewing the same. It is also contended that the whole exercise rendered by the authorities under the Act is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), was not complied with. 8. The writ petitioner no where states that a proper enquiry was held in consonance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules nor any document has been produced before this court to satisfy the requirement of Rule 5 of the Rules. The order issuing basgit parcha in favour of the petitioner thus appears to be lacunic and wholly without jurisdiction. The order whereby and whereunder basgit parcha was issued to the petitioner thus appears to be an illegal order and even assuming that the same has been reviewed may be termed as an order being wholly without jurisdiction but this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot put its seal in approval of the same. Illegal order, if reviewed illegally, may not be quashed but this court would not be loath in passing an order of no interference in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In this connection, reference may made to the case of Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1999(8) Supreme Court Cases 16 [:2000(2) PLJR (SC)196. 9. Prima facie this court is satisfied that the petitioner had not claimed himself as a privileged tenant nor the Collector under the Act exercised its power vested in it in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as referred to above. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the.case, this court finds no justification to interfere with the order impugned. 11. This application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.