Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 874 (PAT)

Raj Mangal Ram v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-20

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narayan, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 21 for the State. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the part of the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by respondent no. 2, the Collector, Patna in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 2002-03, by which the Collector while holding that the petitioner of the said case was entitled to get compensation alongwith statutory interest, had further directed that the said amount of compensation should be recovered from the personal pockets of these four petitioner Revenue Officials i.e. Revenue Karamchari, Circle Inspector, Circle Officer, Danapur and D.C.L.R., Danapur holding them responsible for fixation of rent of land in question and opening Jamabandi in the name of respondent no. 4 and thereby fraudulently giving the land to him. 3. The short facts of the case are that the Land Acquisition Case No. 2/2002-03 was initiated by the Additional Collector for acquisition of certain lands of Mauja Jalalpur and other Maujas for which notices were issued. The respondent no. 4 Nilya Nand Singh claimed compensation with respect to his piof no. 539 appertaining to Khata No. 152 measuring 1 Katha 12 Dhurs situated in the said Mauja within Danapur Anchal. By order dated 3.9.2003 the Additional Collector, Patna rejected his claim for compensation whereupon the respondent no. 4 filed CWJC No. 2415 of 2004 challenging the same. By order dated 13.10.2004, on a consideration of the entire facts and specially the original sale deeds, which had not been produced before the authorities earlier, this Court directed the Collector, Patna to give another opportunity to the respondent no. 4 (the petitioner of that case) to satisfy him about his claim of compensation with respect to the land in question for which he was required to produce all his documents before the Collector who, in turn, was directed to dispose of the case after assigning reasons and in accordance with law. This Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion in the matter regarding merit of the petitioners case and the petitioner was not permitted to raise any other issue except that relating to compensation. 4. This Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion in the matter regarding merit of the petitioners case and the petitioner was not permitted to raise any other issue except that relating to compensation. 4. When the matter came before the District Magistrate/Collector, Patna on the transfer of the case in view of the order of this Court, he considered the issue of fixation of rent in Rent Fixation Case No. 5/ 2002-03 by the Circle Officer, Danapur and approved by the DCLR, Danapur holding that although the land was Gair Mazarua Malik and the rent Fixation Case has been filed sensing payment of amount of compensation because of initiation of process of land acquisition and the whole thing has been done by the authorilies in one day; and further that the petitioner (present respondent no. 4) has succeeded in proving his possession and ownership over the land in question not because it was his properly but it was fraudulently given to him with the connivance of the Revenue Officials. It was held by the Collector that the respondent no. A is entitled to get compensation amount with statutory interest but the said amount of compensation should be recovered from the personal pockets of Revenue Officials responsible for the fraudulent Iransfer of rights, i.e., equally from the pockets of these petitioners as they are responsible for fixation of rent of the land in question and opening of Jamabandi in the name of respondent no. 4 for wrongful gain. It was further directed by the Collector that a copy of his order relating to proposal for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioners should be sent to the concerned Department heads for further course of action. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the action of the Collector with respect to the order that the amount of compensation should be recovered from the personal pocket of these four petitioners. It is firstly submitted that these four petitioners were not before the Collector when the order was passed and thus any such order of recovery from the personal pockets of the petitioners is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that even otherwise the action of these petitioners cannot be said to be such as to give rise to any liability for recovery of compensation from their pockets. It is further submitted that even otherwise the action of these petitioners cannot be said to be such as to give rise to any liability for recovery of compensation from their pockets. It is submitted that the order of fixation of rent and opening of Jamabandi in the name of any particular person does not create any right to ownership and title of land in his favour, at best such rent fixation may be considered as an evidence of possession. It is submitted that it is settled principle of law that such rent fixation is only for the purpose of collection of revenue and docs not by itself create the title of a person paying such rent. Thus, merely on the basis of the said rent fixation case it was not open for the Collector to hold that by the actions of these petitioners any right and title stood vested in respondent no. 4 to enable him to be entitled for compensation in the land acquisition case. If at all the Collector had to reach any such conclusion he would have to go into the matter of vesting of rights in the land on acquisition of Zamindari by the Stale of Bihar by enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and further on the basis of the sale deeds that were registered in the name of the respondent no. 4. It is submitted that none of those issues have been. considered by the Collector and in a most irresponsible manner and merely on the basis of rent fixation case he has awarded the amount of compensation which he was not expected to do in terms of the order of this Court. 6. It is further submitted that even otherwise the action of these petitioners was not contrary to law since according to the Khatian which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition, it is evident that it was not simply Gair Majarua Malik land but was mentioned as Gair Majarua Malik Land Makan Mai Sahan Bakabje Malik Ya Pokhta and thus, even the statements made by the Collector in the order shows his ignorance of the issues of law involved in the case. It is submitted that if under the said circumstances these petitioners had made rent fixation and opened the Jamabandi in the name of respondent no. It is submitted that if under the said circumstances these petitioners had made rent fixation and opened the Jamabandi in the name of respondent no. 4 it could not be said that they had acted wholly illegally and contrary to law or contrary to their duty to protect the interest of Government or public property or with a view to siphon-off the public money spent on land acquisition. In support of the said proposition, learned counsel has relied upon various decisions of this Court reported in 1986 PLJR 881, 1984 PLJR 391 and 1990 BLJ 693. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order has been passed without any material before the Collector and in the absence of any such material he could not have held the petitioners responsible. In this regard reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranchi Ragional Development Authority V/s. Sushil Kumar Mahto, 2006(5) Supreme 713 in which certain observations of the High Court for initiating action against the officials of Ranchi Regional Development Authority was under consideration and the Supreme Court held that without adequate materials inference had been drawn by the High Court for the laxity of the authorities and such directions were too generalized and therefore, directed to be deleted. In the present case also learned counsel submits that from perusal of the records it is evident that the order for rent fixation had not been passed on one date as has been stated in the impugned order dated 3.7.2006 by the Collector rather the proceedings for the same had been initiated on 24.6.2002 and after the necessary inspection and other required procedure being carried out at the level of the Circle Officer, the matter finally went to the DCLR and thereafter he passed his order on 28.9.2002. 8. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State however, contends that the aforesaid direction of the Collector cannot be treated as an order of recovery, rather it is only an expression of opinion on his part that the amount of compensation should be recovered from these petitioners and for that purpose he has given a proposal for initiating a disciplinary proceeding and only if the said disciplinary proceeding is concluded and finding is recorded against these petitioners, any such action for recovery of whatever extent can be made by the said authorities. Thus, it is submitted that the said order must be read in that context and not treated as an order of recovery straightaway from these petitioners. Learned counsel however admits that from perusal of the order of the Collector, it is evident that he has misconstrued the order of the High Court treating it as one where he had to grant compensation to the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the rent fixation case whereas according to the learned counsel he ought to have considered the entire issues including the application of provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 . In fact, it is submitted by the learned State Counsel that in view of the issues of title that had arisen, the best course open for the Collector was to have deposited the amount of compensation in Court and referred the matter to the District Judge for deciding the question of title in terms of the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . In any view of the matter, it is submitted that the said order should not be taken as a direction for recovery straightaway but one subject to result of the departmental proceedings. 9. On a consideration of the rival contentions this Court does not wish to enter into the issue of correctness or otherwise of the order of the Collector, so far as the question of titie and other matters are concerned. However, it is evident that merely on the basis of a rent fixation case in favour of a person, no such conclusion could have been drawn that the title over the land has passed over to the person in question. Thus, if the Collector had to be satisfied about the title of the respondent no. However, it is evident that merely on the basis of a rent fixation case in favour of a person, no such conclusion could have been drawn that the title over the land has passed over to the person in question. Thus, if the Collector had to be satisfied about the title of the respondent no. 4 then it had to be on the basis of the entire materials on record and not only on the basis of rent fixation case. It is wholly wrong for the Collector to assume that by the act of these petitioners the respondent no. 4 had succeeded in proving his title and ownership of the land in question because no such conclusion can be drawn from the proceeding of a rent fixation case and opening of Jamabandi. In any case, in my opinion, it was not open to the Collector to pass any such order of recovery from the personal pockets of the Revenue Officers holding them responsible for fraudulent transfer of right and titie over the land in question by them. The respondent no. 4 was claiming his title on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in his favour and the proceedings of rent fixation were only an additional aspect of the matter since the proof of his title would not depend upon the rent fixation case but upon the documents of title in his possession and the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. This Court does not find that there is any such consideration of the matter by the Collector and it appears that on a wrong view of the law the Collector has held the petitioners responsible for having given the right and title in favour of respondent no. 4. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts even though it is conceded by the State counsel that the impugned order dated 3.7.2006 does not direct recovery from the petitioners, yet this Court, to put the record straight, holds that no such recovery shall be made from any of the petitioners merely on the order of the Collector without the competent authorities having complied with the principles of natural justice and having heard them in the matter. In any case it was not open to the Collector to have passed any such order of recovery without complying with the due process of law. In any case it was not open to the Collector to have passed any such order of recovery without complying with the due process of law. At best the Collector could only have recommended for disciplinary proceedings by the appropriate authorities of the Government with respect to the actions of these petitioners in relation to rent fixation case and the entire matter would have been before the concerned disciplinary authority and only if the charges are proved against the petitioners in such a disciplinary proceeding, then the question of an appropriate punishment would arise. The proceedings cannot be initiated by suggesting punishment in advance by the Collector. It is an established principle of law that the disciplinary authority cannot pre-judge the issue and decide upon the proof of misconduct and punishment in advance even before the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 3.7.2006 is quashed to the extent of the finding regarding the connivance of these petitioners in the rent fixation case and the direction for recovery. However, the authorities shall be free to take such disciplinary action which they deem fit so far as the action of these petitioners in respect of the rent fixation case is concerned but only after complying with the requirements of law in this regard and while doing so they shall not be prejudiced to any extent by any findings or observations of the Collector in the order dated 3.7.2006.