Hare Krishna Ram And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Collector, Supaul in Miscellaneous Ceiling Case No. 40 of 2001 as contained in

Annexure-6 and also the order of the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna dated 13.07.2017 as contained in Annexure-2.

The Collector was helpless as he has to comply with the direction of this Court dated 16.03.1999 issued in CWJC No.1581 of 1989 (Annexure-4). The

Hon’ble Court, on consideration of the materials on record, came to a finding that the action of the Collector in not cancelling the provisional

Purcha issued in favour of the purcha-holder is illegal and arbitrary and the writ application was allowed in favour of the writ petitioners. The relevant

part of the order dated 16th of March, 1999 is quoted hereinbelow:-

“12. Therefore, in my view, in the background of the facts, stated above, it is highly unjust and improper on the part of the Collector to

reject the petition under section 37 of the Act, which was filed for withdrawal of the Purchas. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order

and allow the writ application with a direction to the Collector to withdraw such provisional Purchas, which were granted with respect to

the lands of the petitioners. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.â€​

Since the Collector was helpless in a situation where the land acquired and distributed was found to be illegal by the respondents and they have

cancelled the acquisition vide District Gazette dated 27.11.1985 and once the foundation of issuance of Purcha goes, there was absolutely no occasion

for the Collector to allow the purcha-holder to continue and retain the land on the strength of issuance of Purcha. The decision of the Collector was

assailed before the Bihar Land Tribunal and the Tribunal realizing the fact that the mandamus was issued by this Court vide Annexure-4, the Collector

has passed the order in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not found fault with the order of the Collector.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are continuing over the land in question on the basis of the

provisional Purcha and mutation of their name over the land in question and they have not been heard by the respondent-Collector before passsing

order contained in Annexure-6. Since the foundation of issuance of Purcha goes on account of cancellation of acquisition of land by the Gazette

Notification published in the District Gazette, the consequential action on account of the acquisition of land also goes and in the aforesaid background

when this Court has issued direction to the Collector, the Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the Collector contained in Annexure-6.

So far as the grievance of the petitioners that their family members would be displaced as a result of Annexure-6 and they are landless people and

they are required to be be rehabilitated at any other suitable alternative place by the Collector is concerned, the Court, in order to do justice to the

petitioners, disposes of the writ application with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Collector, Supaul to explore the possibility of providing another

land for rehabilitation of these petitioners who are landless people. Necessary decision on the representation filed by the petitioners shall be taken by

the Collector, Supaul within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the present writ application stands disposed of.