Ajay Kumar Chaubey vs State Of Bihar

The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.02.2019 passed in B.L.T. Case No. 356 of 2017 by Dr. C. Ashokvardhan, Member Administrative, Bihar Land Tribunal by which he has allowed the aforesaid case and confirmed the order passed by the Circle Officer, Kotwa in Miscellaneous Case No. 1369 of 2013-14 whereby the application under section 48(D) of the Bihar Tenancy Act filed by the Respondents No. 5 to 9 was allowed and they were declared raiyat in respect of land bearing Khata No. 88, Khesra No. 633 having total area 1.37 Acre situated in Mauza Ratanpur, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran.

The Respondents No. 5 to 9 were issued notice.

They have appeared in this case. Shri Vijay Shankar Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 appeared on 06.08.2019 and subsequently, he has appeared for the other respondents also but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

Heard the parties, Shri Rajesh Ranjan for the petitioner, Shri Vijay Shankar Srivastava for the Respondents No. 5 to 9, Shri Wasi Ahmed Khan, AC to Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the following grounds:-

The petitioner was not heard by the Circle Officer, Kotwa as there was no service of notice.

2.The application submitted by the private respondents for declaration of raiyati right was totally misconceived and based upon suppression of material facts.

As per Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules 1992 the Respondents No. 5 to 9 were required to submit their application in Form C and in the absence of an application in Form C, the Circle Officer ought to have rejected the application.

4.The Report prepared by the Revenue Karmchari and the Circle Officer was collusive and the same was prepared without conducting any spot enquiry as it fails to mention the basis of its conclusion that the Respondent No. 5 to 9 have been in possession of the land.

The reliance of the Circle Officer on the collusive service report is illegal.

6.The Service report has also been challenged by the petitioner that it is a fabricated documents.

The notices issued by the Circle Officer do not contain any memo number which raises a suspicion over the genuineness of the same.

Miscellaneous Case No. 1369 of 2013-14 by the Circle Officer has not mentioned the next date of hearing in the various orders of the order sheet but in the notices allegedly issued to the petitioner the date of next hearing is mentioned, which points out that the records were manipulated.

The order passed by the Circle Officer is violative of principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Non-compliance of provision relating to submission of application in prescribed format vitiated the entire proceeding.

The proceeding under Section 48(D) deprives a person of his land as the tenant thereon becomes landlord himself and where the consequence is so drastic, strict compliances of all procedural safeguards is mandatory.

The Circle officer has failed to consider that the Respondents No. 5 to 9 had failed to disclose the essential facts such as legal heirs of recorded sikmidar, his date of death and date of coming into possession by them as under raiyat and therefore, this application should have been dismissed.

The Tribunal has failed to consider that the proceeding under Section 48(D)of the Bihar Tribunal Act was vitiated on account of gross irregularities in the proceedings before the Circle Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rasik Lal Mahto vs. State of Bihar & ors. 2010 (3) PLJR 506 (HC).

Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava has submitted that the notice which was served upon the petitioner was property served and the order has been passed by the Circle Officer after following the due process of law, and the order under Tribunal is perfectly justified.

The proceeding under Section 48(D) on the Bihar Tenancy Acts 1885 reads as follows:-

Acquisition of raiyati right by occupancy under raiyat :

(1) An occupancy under raiyat shall if he makes an application in this behalf in the prescribed manner, by entitled to acquire the right of a raiyat subject to the payment to be made as may be prescrived by the State Government and the right to the land-holder in such land shall extinguish:

Provided that the land on which he acquires such right along with other land held by him anywhere in the State does not exceed the area he may hold under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act XIII of 1962).

(2) The remaining area, if any, in which the under raiyat does not acquire the right of a raiyat shall continue to be held by the raiyat under whom the under raiyat held the land.

(3) The land owner in respect of whose land the under raiyat acquires the right of a raiyat under sub-secton (1) shall be paid as compensation on amount equivalent to twenty-four times the rent of the holding in the manner prescribed in this behalf.

Proceeding under Section 48(D) virtually deprives a person his land as the tenant thereon becomes the landlord himself and that too for a meagre compensation whereas the consequences are drastic, the authority are required to observe the strict compliance of procedural safeguards that are available to the parties.

Under the Act, an application has to be filed in Form (C) by giving the details. This is an admitted position that private respondents have not filed there application in Form (C). They have filed the application as contained in Annexure-1 and the details required for filing the application under section 48(D) are missing. The claimants have to give the name of the raiyat with parentage address, year since they claimed to be holding the occupancy under raiyat and all those details are missing. The application is bereft of the essential information including the boundary of the land in question.

This Court at the moment is not going to examine in detail, the pleas of the petitioner as the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Circle Officer, Kotwa, District East Champaran has been passed without hearing the petitioner and is a cryptic order without any reason. The Learned counsel for the State has also fairly submitted that the order dated 16.01.2014 is a cryptic order and cannot be sustained.

Any order which is without any reason is no order in the eye of law. Moreover, the Circle Officer, Kotwa ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in law for entertaining the application of the private respondents.

In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 16.01.2014 and a subsequent order dated 25.01.2014 which is a consequential order cannot be sustained and they are quashed. The subsequent order passed by the B.L.T. dated 15.02.2019 by the Member Administrative, Bihar Land Tribunal is also quashed as when the foundation goes the entire structure will go.

The matter is remitted back to the Circle Officer, Kotwa, District East Champaran for fresh consideration from the stage of the appearance of the parties. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all objections as raised in this application before the Circle Officer, Kotwa, District East Champaran who will hear both the parties and decide all the objections of the petitioner and after hearing the submission of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 to 9 will pass the order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is allowed with cost.