Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 825 (PAT)

Dharam Deo Kuwar, Begusarai v. State Of Bihar

2011-04-27

R.M.DOSHIT

body2011
JUDGEMENT R.M.Doshit, J. 1. These two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise identical issue. The petitions are, therefore, decided by this common order. 2. The Petitioners in both these writ petitions claim that they are in possession of the disputed parcels of land of Village Jhamariya, District-Begusarai; particulars of which are mentioned in Paragraph 4 of each petition. According to the Petitioners, the disputed parcels of land were settled in favour of their ancestors by the then landlords. The Petitioners inherited the said parcels of land from their ancestors. Thus, the disputed parcels of land are in their possession without any interference for more than 40 years. Over a period of time the said parcels of land were submerged under the river water and were later resumed. The Petitioners, therefore, filed applications for fixation of rent. After appropriate enquiry, by the orders made by the Circle Officer on 10th March, 1986 in Land Settlement Case no. 36/85-86, Rent Fixation Case Nos. 20/85-86, 21/85-86, 25/85-86, 30/85-86 and 34/85-86 (Annexure 1 and 1 series to the writ petitions), the rent of the disputed parcels of land was fixed. Since then the Petitioners are in possession of the said lands without interference. Nevertheless, the District Magistrate by impugned order dated 29th October, 1993 unilaterally set aside the orders of the Circle Officer without notice to the writ petitioners. 3. In compliance with the order of the District Magistrate the Circle Officer has made consequential orders on 17th January, 1994 (Annexure 4 to each petition). 4. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners have preferred the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. It may be noted that the State Government has not filed counter-affidavit to deny the averments/allegations made in the writ petitions. It may also be noted that though the Petitioners claim the settlement made in favour of their predecessors and actual possession for several decades, the said statements are not supported by documentary evidence. 6. On perusal of documents on record, it is apparent that the District Magistrate made the impugned order dated 29th October, 1993 on the premise that the Circle Officer had no power or Authority to make the order of settlement of lands or of fixing the rent of the lands. 7. 6. On perusal of documents on record, it is apparent that the District Magistrate made the impugned order dated 29th October, 1993 on the premise that the Circle Officer had no power or Authority to make the order of settlement of lands or of fixing the rent of the lands. 7. Be that as it may, it is indisputable that right or wrong, with or without the Authority, the Circle Officer did make orders in favour of the Petitioners. Before the said orders were cancelled by the District Magistrate; may be on the ground of want of Authority or power of the Circle Officer, the principles of fair play and natural justice required the District Collector to give opportunity to the Petitioners to show cause and of personal hearing, if required. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the Petitioners were given opportunity to show cause or of hearing; nor the complaint made by the Petitioners of violation of principle of natural justice has been denied by the Respondents. 8. In the above circumstances, the petitions deserve to be allowed. The impugned orders need to be set aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice alone. 9. For the aforesaid reason, both the petitions are allowed. 10. The impugned order dated 29th October, 1993 made by the District Magistrate, Begusarai, the consequential orders dated 12th November, 1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petitions) and the orders dated 17th January, 1994 made by the Circle Officer, Begusarai (Annexure-4 to the petitions) are quashed and set aside. The parties will bear their own cost. 11. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the legality or otherwise of the settlement or the orders of fixation of rent made in favour of the writ petitioners.