Rajendra Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Others

Anjana Prakash, J.—The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 6.7.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and Sub-Divisional Officer, Arrah, Bhojpur in Land Settlement Case No. 33/92-93 issued by the Circle Officer, Bihiya and the letter dated 17.5.1993 issued by the Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah by which the Authorities concerned stopped the settlement proceeding pertaining to 7 decimals and 5 decimals of Gair Mazarua Land. On 15.6.1992 the petitioner applied before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhojpur at Ara for settlement of Gair Mazarua Land to the area of 7 and 5 decimals which were in the nature of Gair Mazarua Land. A general notice was issued for raising objection if any on 4.9.1992 by the Circle Officer, Bihiya, and he himself visited and conducted the spot enquiry who found that the nature of the land has changed over the years and is in possession of the petitioner who has constructed boundary wall over the same. No objection had been raised by any one with regard to it. So, he sent such a report to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms with recommendation of settlement of the land to the petitioner. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, sent back the records for rectification and clarification of some defects and queries by an order dated 1.10.1992. The Circle Officer, Bihiya, to satisfy the query got the matter enquired through the Halka Karamchari and sent a favourable report to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms once again.

On 28.12.1992 the Sadar Sub Divisional Officer, Arrah, after perusing the recommendation of the Circle Officer as well as report given by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Arrah, recommended for the settlement of land in favour of the petitioner and sent the records to the Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah for necessary action.

Suddenly, on 6.7.1993 the petitioner learnt that an order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Arrah by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner and ordered for removal of any encroachment on the said land without initiating any proceeding as required u/s 3 of Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

On 21.7.1993 the petitioner thereafter received a notice issued by the Circle Officer, Bihiya directing him to remove any encroachment within a certain time frame. In the said notice mention was made about the earlier land encroachment proceeding which had been initiated against the petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once the earlier land encroachment proceeding had attained its finality without an Appeal having been filed u/s 10 of the Act, no such order could have been passed reviving the same. Resultantly, on the basis of such notice, the settlement of the land which was in process could not have been stalled.

The counsel for the State contests the application but is unable to meet the point of law raised on behalf of the petitioner.

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court must conclude positively that once the encroachment proceeding had become final against the petitioner it could not have been revived at any stage thereafter without following the procedure contained in the Land Encroachment Act. Since the Act provides for protection of Civil rights of a citizen rules of natural justice which necessarily includes hearing the parties before any adverse order is passed, has to be adhered to. In view of the discussion, the application is allowed and the order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reform and the Sub Divisional Officer, Arrah, Bhojpur, in Land Settlement Case No. 33/92-93 and notice dated 17.5.1993 issued by the Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Ara, is quashed. It goes without saying that pursuant to this order, the settlement Proceeding which had almost concluded in favour of the petitioner, should proceed in a positive direction.