S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. Whether Article 7 of Schedule I of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, entitles the Collector to recover the agreed settlement amount from settles of a hat, bazar or mela in the absence of a duly executed registered lease deed, is the ticklish question requiring adjudication in this Full Bench. Directly on the issue is the contrary view of the Division Bench in S.A. Mannan V/s. State of Bihar (1958) I.L.R. 37 Pat. 302. followed later in Prabhunath Singh V/s. The State of Bihar 1980 B.B.C.J. 344.

2. The facts are not in serious dispute. On the 1st April, 1977, an open auction was held in the presence of Shri Awadhesh Prasad Singh, Deputy Collector Gaya, for the settlement of hat in Khizersarai for the year 1977-78. The petitioner along with others participated therein and deposited Rs. 600 as security money and the bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 11,501 only as the highest bidder. It is the petitioners claim that he later deposited Rs. 5,400 with the Anchal Adhikari, though, admittedly, no receipt whatsoever was issued by him. It is then averred on behalf of the petitioner that neither any Parwana or any toll chart was issued in favour of the petitioner and further no registered lease deed was executed betwixt the respondent State and the petitioner, as required by Rule 7-T of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951. It is his case that only by virtue of the terms of agreement executed in the prescribed Form P (4) that the arrears of rent or interest etc. with regard to such settlement can be made recoverable under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, (hereinafter to be referred to asthe Act). The further case sought to be set up on behalf of the petitioner is that he applied before the Anchal Adhikari for issuance of toll chart or Parwana, which, however, was not issued, and, consequently, he did not collect the tolls from the said bazar even for a single day. Later the petitioner moved an application for the refund of the total amount of Rs. 6,000 vide Annexure I to the writ petition. Far from this being done a notice dated 29-11-1977 was issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Khizersarai, demanding deposit of the bid money of Rs. 11,501 from the petitioner and in reply thereto he denied any such liability and reiterated bis demand for the refund instead. Later a certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a notice dated 19-12-1977 Under Section 7 of the Act was issued vide Annexure 2. The petitioner filed an objection before the Certificate Officer, Gaya, (respondent No. 3), who rejected the objection vide his order dated 24-1-1978 and with some modification directed realisation of the amount. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal Under Section 60 of the Act before the Additional Collector, who, after hearing the parties, rejected the same vide Annexure4dated 18-3-1981. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition was preferred, inter alia, challenging the very maintainability of the certificate proceeding against him under the Act, primarily on the ground that no registered lease deed had been formally executed betwixt him and the respondent State.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the factum of holding of an open auction and the bid having been knocked down in favour of the petitioner as the highest bidder for Rs. 11,501 is clearly admitted. However, the petitioners claim that he had subsequently deposited Rs. 5,400 with the Anchal Adhikari, who allegedly did not issue any receipt, is stoutly denied and it is stated that he never deposited any amount and the coined out version is entirely false. It is averred that the petitioner started collecting tolls from Khizersarai Bazar despite the fact that he had not deposited the requisite money and further though the bid chart was duly issued vide memo No. 409 dated 1-12-1977, (vide Annexure B to the counter- affidavit of the petitioner refused