Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 88 (PAT)

Yogendra Narain Jha v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-23

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.9.1990/ 7.10.1990 passed by the Anchaladhikari, whereby and whereunder purchas have been issued to respondent nos. 5 to 50 under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") and Rules framed thereunder. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Anchaladhikari issued purchas in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 50 contrary to the provisions of law and even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in prescribed manner, as detailed under the Rules. 4. My attention has been drawn to the order impugned showing that the day the private respondents applied for issuance of purchas, the proceeding was initiated without holding even a formal inquiry and the application filed by the private respondents was not in prescribed proforma nor the names of the land holders were disclosed. 5. It appears that there is nothing.on record to show that the petitioners were the privileged persons under the definition of the Act, and they had less land than one acre nor there is any finding in the order impugned holding respondent nos. 5 to 50 as privileged persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is non-compliance of Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules and the authorities under the Act in a most arbitrary manner issued purchas in favour of private respondents without noticing the claim of the petitioners. 7. From the order impugned, it would be manifest that notice was directed to be issued to the land holders inviting objections and the same was despatched through postal process, but there is nothing in the order impugned to show that the notice was ever served upon the land holders or the authorities passed the order impugned on the basis of the service return. It also appears that the Anchal Inspector was directed to hold further inquiry, but spot inquiry in presence of the petitioners was never held as required under Rule 5 of the Rules. 8. Learned counsel for the State and on behalf of the private respondents, however, submitted that the claims of the respondents were examined by the authorities and purchas were issued in accordance with law. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the State and on behalf of the private respondents, however, submitted that the claims of the respondents were examined by the authorities and purchas were issued in accordance with law. 9. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is not disclosed as to whether there was effective service of notice upon the land holders or as to whether the private respondents were the privileged persons as defined under the Act. 10. The affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents also does not disclose the factum of service of notice on the land holders nor it is stated that they had applied for issuance of purchas in prescribed proforma. 11. Issuance of purchas under the provisions of the Act is determination as per the requirement of the Act and Rules. 12. From the materials on record, it appears that the requirements as envisaged under the Act and the Rules have not fully been complied with nor any opportunity was given to the land holders before issuance of the purchas. 13. The procedure adopted by the authorities, thus, appears to be quite unknown to law. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, the entire process appears to be de hors the law and not sustainable. 15. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. No order as to costs.