SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Pat) 66

PATNA HIGH COURT
Birendra Prasad Sinha and M.P.Varma JJ.
Daudpur Fishermen Co-op.Society Ltd.And Others
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2685 of 1980 ;
Decided On : MARCH 24, 1981

Headnote:Bihar Land Reforms Rules, Rule 7(T)-Jalkars failing within the area of operation of the petitioning Co-Operative Society-Petitioning Society running in arrears of Government Revenue-Settlement made to a society having a different area of operation is valid. (Para 7)

       Constitution of India Art. 226-Writ of certiorari-Application made on suppression of facts-No relief cab be granted. (Para 8)

       

Judgment

M.P.VARMA, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1 Daudpur Fishermens Co-operative Society Ltd. Dinapur through its Secretary has filed this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of orders, contained in annexure-1 and annexure-1/1 passed by respondent No. 2 Additional Collector, and Collector, Patna making settlement of the two Jalkars in favour of respondent No. 8 the Digha Ghat Fishermens Co-operative Society. Other petitioners 2 to 7 are the members and office-bearers of the Managing Committee of petitioner No. 1. It is a registered co-operative society under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act). This Daudpur Fishermens Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as "Daudpur Society") has got its bye-laws and in furtherance of the cause of the society, according to the bye-laws, falls in the area of its operation. This takes settlement of Jalkars rights, which settlement is done by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar. Bihta and Dinapur Anchals are within the area of operation and the following two jalkars fall in the Bihta and Dinapur Anchals :

(i) Sone Sota Touzi Nos. 5340, 409 and 3732 from village Dinapur Sahajadpur Takia up to Maner Ghogharanpur.

(ii) Usri Nala-Plot No. 1. Both the Jalkars fall within the subdivision of Dinapur.

2. The Additional Collector, Revenue (respondent No. 2) issued notices for the settlement of the aforesaid two jalkars and the copies of the notices were sent to this petitioner and also to respondent No. 4, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patna. It is stated that this petitioner, as well as respondent No. 8, applied for the settlement of the aforesaid Jalkars. It has been claimed on behalf of the petitioner that it is the policy of the State that co-operative societies will be given preference in the matter of settlement of sairats over other individuals and it is also the policy of the State that settlement of such saiarats in favour of a particular co-operative society in whose area of operation the sairat lies should be made and no other co-operative society can operate legally in that area. Respondent No. 6 District Co-operative Officer, Patna keeping the aforesaid policy of the Government in view recommended for the settlement of the aforesaid Jalkars for the year 1980-81 in favour of the petitioner Doudpur Society as the Jalkars are within its area of operation. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Hon ble Minister of Co-operation also wrote to the Collector, Patna recommending therein that the Jalkars falling within the area of the Doudpur Society be settled with it and a copy of this letter was sent to the Additional Collector respondent No. 2. A copy of the letter of recommendation of the Hon ble Minister has been filed as Annexure-5 (sic). The Anchal Adhikari, in his turn submitted a report (vide annexure-6) to respondent No. 2 stating therein that the petitioners society, i.e. the Daudpur Society was in arrear, who, on consideration of the facts of the case, settled both the jalkars, i.e. Sone Sota and also Usri Nala Jalkar to respondent No. 8 Dighaghat Fishermens Co-operative Society as per orders contained in annexures 1 and 1/1. The validity and the legality of these two orders have been challenged and a prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of these two orders.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is not only arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, but it is also palpably erroneous. The respondent No. 2 (Additional Collector) has made a departure from the settled policy of the Department of Co-operation in making settlement of the Jalkars with respondent No. 8, as the two Jalkars do not lie within the area of its operation. It is contended that the area of operation of respondent No. 8 is Dighaghat and Phulwari Anchals and does not include Bihta and Dinapur Anchals, i








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top