Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1660 (PAT)

Yogendra Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2016-12-19

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Birendra Prasad Verma, J. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AC to GP 9, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners had originally filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over the lands in question, fully described in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The petitioners had also prayed that the respondents may be directed to supply the ordersheet of Rent Fixation Misc. Case No. 03 of 2003, where after the orders passed therein be also quashed. 3. This matter was heard earlier on different dates and in compliance of the order passed, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 by taking a plea that the lands in question was acquired way back in the year 1920 for construction of Patna Sewerage Construction Scheme, and subsequently it was transferred in the year 1975 to Beur Central Jail. It was also pleaded that in view of the claim of purchase made by the father of the petitioners in the year 1930, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners for cancellation of jamabandi and accordingly, by order dated 01.12.2004, jamabandi no. 2657 created in favour of the petitioners regarding the lands in question has been cancelled by the District Collector, Patna. 4. In above view of the matter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No. 1681 of 2005 seeking amendment of the writ petition and seeking permission to assail the validity and correctness of the order dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna which was duly approved by the District Collector, Patna on 01.12.2004 canceling jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna, which was approved by the District Collector, Patna, by order dated 01.12.2004, has been brought on the record as Annexure-15 to the aforesaid Interlocutory Application. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that by order dated 26.11.2004, the Additional Collector, Patna recommended for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question, but before passing aforesaid order, he has not given opportunity of hearing to these petitioners. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that by order dated 26.11.2004, the Additional Collector, Patna recommended for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question, but before passing aforesaid order, he has not given opportunity of hearing to these petitioners. It is further submitted by him that the District Collector, Patna, without application of his independent judicial mind to the facts of the case, has simply initialed the aforesaid order on 01.12.2004. According to him, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law, apart from the merits, on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. 6. The learned AC to GP 9, appearing on behalf of the respondents has contested the matter and submitted that, in fact, show cause were issued to the petitioners by the Circle Officer as also D.C.L.R., therefore, the petitioners were aware about pendency of the proceeding. However, despite repeated queries, he has not been able to show that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners either by the Additional Collector, Patna or the District Collector, Patna before passing the impugned orders. 7. After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision by the Additional Collector, Patna. Indisputably, by order dated 26.11.2004 the Additional Collector, Patna recommended for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question, but before passing that order, he has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court also finds that though on the basis of the recommendation made by the Additional Collector, Patna, the District Collector, Patna approved the same and cancelled the jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners, but he has not written even a single sentence and simply he has put his signature of approval on 01.12.2004. The manner in which the impugned order has been passed cannot be approved in law. Since the rules of natural justice has not been strictly followed, the matter requires reconsideration and a fresh decision by the respondent Additional Collector, Patna under Section 9 of The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. 8. The manner in which the impugned order has been passed cannot be approved in law. Since the rules of natural justice has not been strictly followed, the matter requires reconsideration and a fresh decision by the respondent Additional Collector, Patna under Section 9 of The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned recommendation dated 26.11.2004 made by the Additional Collector, Patna and the final order dated 01.12.2004 passed in Rent Fixation Misc. Case No. 03 of 2002-03 by the District Collector, Patna, as contained in Annexure-15 to the Interlocutory Application No. 1681 of 2005 are set aside and quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Additional Collector, Patna with a direction to decide the aforesaid jamabandi cancellation case afresh strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, besides other, if any. 9. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent Additional Collector, Patna with a certified copy of the present order within a period of one month from today, where after the respondent Additional Collector, Patna shall proceed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, but before passing any final order, opportunity of hearing must be given to all concerned including the petitioners. 10. It is clarified that if the petitioners do not appear within the aforesaid period of one month, then the respondent Additional Collector, Patna after receipt of the copy of the present order shall proceed to pass fresh order in the aforesaid case and in that case the petitioners shall not be allowed to challenge the final order on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated, but with the observations and directions made above. I.A.No. 1681 of 2005 stands, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the facts of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.