Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 253 (PAT)

Braj Kishore Pathak v. State of Bihar

2006-03-22

body2006
JUDGMENT NARAYAN ROY, J 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The order, as contained in annexure 5 dated 11.03.1988, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the Additional Collector directed the Anchaladhikari, Baheri for correction of existing Zamabandi No. 56 opened in the name of the petitioner in respect of one bigha 10 kathas of land comprising plot nos. 246 and 247 appertaining to khata no. 67 of village Mainkopatti in the District of Darbhanga. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question covering plot nos. 246 and 247 are the purchased lands of the petitioner by a sale deed executed in the year 1967 and thereafter the petitioner applied for mutation and his name, accordingly, was mutated in the revenue record and Zamabandi was opened in his name apperatining to the lands in question, as referred to above. However, the Circle Officer tried to disturb his possession by setting the land in question in favour of other persons. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who referred the matter to the Additional Collector for necessary decision, pursuant to which the order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, was issued directing for correction in the Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Additional Collector passed the order impugned without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and in case, the Additional Collector was satisfied to review or modify the Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner, a notice was required to be served upon him. It is also contended that the petitioner remained in possession of the land in question throughout and his claim are supported by the report of the Halka Karmachari. 4. By filing a counter affidavit, the respondents tried to justify their action saying that part of the land in question was Gair Mazarua Khas and therefore, the Zamabandi could not have been opened in the name of the petitioner for the entire land. 5. Part of the land in question appears to be a Pokhar, which is said to be in specific possession of the petitioner. 6. 5. Part of the land in question appears to be a Pokhar, which is said to be in specific possession of the petitioner. 6. The question, however, arises as to whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to direct for correction of Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of being heard. 7. Admittedly, it appears to be a case where no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner while passing the order, as contained in annexure 5. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, is held to be violative of the principles of Natural Justice and wholly without jurisdiction. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, is set aside. However, the respondents may proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.