Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 362 (PAT)

Sri Ravindra Nath Jha v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-19

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This case has a chequered history. The petitioners have raised a short point for consideration of this court. 3. It is their submission that in any ceiling proceeding where a persons land is a subject matter for consideration under the Act then that person has to be mandatorily noticed before any step is taken in those proceedings. It is the further submission that failure to give notice to individual would be fatal to those individuals. 4. State has filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, replies to which have been filed. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and with their consent the proceedings are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 6. It appears that a proceeding was initiated against one Bhuwan Jha son of Budhi Jha, who was son of Krishna Jha, the common ancestor of all the parties. The genealogical table has been appended as Annexure 3 to the Writ application and it is not disputed that the same was available to the authorities at all relevant time. Two other proceedings were also started in the name of two other family members from the large number of member of the said family. In those proceedings the petitioners appeared, filed their objections and the proceedings were dropped but so far ias proceedings against Bhuwan Jha is concerned, the petitioners were neither made parties nor noticed and as that branch has very little land they also did not pursue the matter. Their lands being within limits were not touched whereas the lands belonging to other members of family, who are not even noticed nor made party, were declared surplus. Some of the family members namely, Jitendra Jha and Bindeshar Jha protesting against the Civil Case no. 5/ 1070-71 are seeking to get the said proceedings re-opened in terms of Section 45B of the Act. This Writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1991 of 1984 was heard and disposed of by this court by judgment and order dated 14th February, 1996 wherein the notification, as issued under Section 15(1) of the Act, was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Collector for re-consideration for re-opening the proceedings. The Collector was directed to pass orders under Sec. 45B of the Act after issuing notice to all the parties concerned including parcha holders. The Collector was directed to pass orders under Sec. 45B of the Act after issuing notice to all the parties concerned including parcha holders. In effect this court directed that the proceedings as against Bhola Jha being Ceiling Case no. 5/1970- 71 be re-opened and disposed of afresh. It appears that pursuant to the said order in terms of Sec. 45B of the Act, as it then stood, the Collector of the district by order dated 5.8.2000 in effect re-opened the proceedings and directed issuance of notice to all the concerned parties and then transferred the matter before the Additional Collector for consideration and disposal. The Additional Collector on receipt of the records directed issuance of notice to all concerned but as apparent from order dated 20.11.2000 that notices on several persons totalling to about 25 being members of the land holders were not served. The record of the proceedings further disclosed that on 13.12.2000 fresh order was issued by the Additional Collector Land Ceiling, Darbhanga for issuance of notice to land holders. It seems that again notices on various land holders were not served and the matter came up before the Additional Collector, the Collector under the Act, on 20.3.2001. This order clearly reveals that though the Additional Collector found notice on various persons including two petitioners here had not been duly served he held that no further notice be given as other relations of the petitioners and their like had been served with notice. It is thus manifest that the petitioners and some members of their like were not individually served notice. Notices issued to other family members were duly served and were deemed to be validly served on the petitioners as well and accordingly the proceedings proceeded which led to re-affirmation of the earlier order under Section 15(1) of the Act. These facts are not disputed by the State. 7. Two issues have been raised, firstly, that as per direction of this court in the earlier writ application the Collector had to re-open and decide the matter. He could not have delegated this authority to the Additional Collector and secondly all parties not having been noticed the proceedings stood vitiated for non compliance of the provision of the Act and principle of natural justice. 8. Having considered the matter, so far as first point is concerned, to my mind, it has been raised only to be rejected. He could not have delegated this authority to the Additional Collector and secondly all parties not having been noticed the proceedings stood vitiated for non compliance of the provision of the Act and principle of natural justice. 8. Having considered the matter, so far as first point is concerned, to my mind, it has been raised only to be rejected. This court, by which earlier direction in the earlier writ application, directed the Collector to exercise power under Sec. 45B of the Act and after notice to all the proceedings proceeded in accordance with law. Section 45B, as it then stood, provided that the State Government or the Collector of the district may at any point of time call tor and examine any records of any proceeding disposed of by a Collector under the Act and may, if he thinks direct that the case be re-opened and disposed of affesh in accordance with the provision of the Act. When this court directed the Collector to exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 45B of the Act this court meant and could have been only meant Collector of the District because no other Collector has the said jurisdiction. When he further went and held that the Collector will decide after giving notice to all the parties. This could only mean Collector under the Act, which would be distinct from Collector of the district. This is apparent from Sec. 45B of the Act itself where two expressions have been used in different context i.e. the Collector of the district and the Collector under the Act. Therefore, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the Collector of the district ordering for re-opening of the proceedings after notice to all parties and then transferring the proceedings to the additional Collector under the Act for final disposal. 9. So far as the other issue of notice is concerned, on that sole issue this writ application must succeed. it is elementary principle of law that no order prejudicial to any person can be passed in absence of notice to the said person. In the present case once the proceedings were sought to be re-opened under Sec. 45B of the Act a notice was required to be given to all land holders. it is elementary principle of law that no order prejudicial to any person can be passed in absence of notice to the said person. In the present case once the proceedings were sought to be re-opened under Sec. 45B of the Act a notice was required to be given to all land holders. This was so because, as pointed out earlier by this court, in earlier judgment any proceeding against Bhola Jhas land and other members were being taken in, who were not noticed and therefore, this court had directed that notice had to be given to all parties. The Additional Collector has clearly noticed in his order dated 20.3.2001 that notices had not been, in fact, served on several land holders yet he deemed it to be served as other relations of the petitioners had been served. To my mind, this is not sufficient compliance of the order of this court or the statutory provisions in this regard or for that matter with the principle of natural justice. It is well settled principle that the more important the right to be infringed the more rigour of compliance of natural justice is required. In the present case valuable land of petitioners are being sought to be taken away in exercise of statutory power tor furtherance of social objective and duty and therefore, it is necessary that principle of natural justice must not only be complied in law but in form also. Valuable rights are being sought to be taken. To my mind, in the present case there cannot be any dispute that several land holders have not been duly noticed and still the proceedings proceeded and final orders passed. 10. In the aforesaid situation. I have no option but to hold that the proceedings as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 stand vitiated for non compliance of principles of natural justice and thus cannot stand at all. 11. I am unable to hold that merely because some persons remained unnoticed proceedings in relation thereto only would stand vitiated as in my view it is difficult to point out as to what would be the consequence if all the parties had been properly noticed and represented. The impugned order cannot be bifurcated in any manner and therefore the entire order has to lapse. 12. The impugned order cannot be bifurcated in any manner and therefore the entire order has to lapse. 12. I accordingly hold that the impugned order as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are thus vitiated and liable to be quashed and quashed as such. 13. The matter is sent back to the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Darbhanga, for proceeding afresh after issuance of notice to all concerned as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is allowed.