1992 Supreme(Pat) 266

PATNA HIGH COURT
Binod Kumar Roy and Indu Prabha Singh JJ.
Phulan Prasad Singh Alias Phulan Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8088 of 1991 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 3, 1992

The Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against an order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, dropping proceedings under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, as there is no provision for such appeals in the Act.

Headnote:

LAND REFORMS - INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - BONA FIDE DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - BONA FIDE DISPUTE - PRIMA FACIE CASE - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, landlords, challenged the appellate order of the Collector, Jehanabad, setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and remitting the case for disposal after constituting Batai Boards. The applicants, claiming to be under-raiyats, had filed applications before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, alleging that they were tried to be dispossessed from the land by the petitioners. The Deputy Collector, after registering the applications, issued notices to the petitioners to file objections, if any. The petitioners filed objections denying the claim of the applicants, tracing the history of acquisition of the lands by their ancestor, of several prohibitory proceedings, suit, execution, in which ancestors of the applicants were defeated, of partition of the lands in a partition suit, non-figuring of the applicants or their ancestors in recent Survey proceedings, proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 as well as under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, stating further that the dispute has been raised mala fide and that there is no prima facie case and the instant proceeding be dropped. They also emphasized that the applicants are of such ages that it would be wholly unnatural that they could have been entrusted with cultivating the lands in batai. The Deputy Collector, after considering the objections and the documents filed by the petitioners, held that the claim of batai put forward by the applicants is not bonafide, and no prima facie case has been made out and dropped the proceeding. The applicants went up in appeals before the Collector, Jehanabad. The Collector, after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and remitted the case to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, for disposal after constituting Batai Boards.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Collector, Jehanabad, exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the appeals even after holding that there is no provision for an appeal as laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Shivanandan Roys case reported in 1980 B. L. J. R. Page 41. The Court further held that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, was well within his jurisdiction to make a casual reference to the documents filed by the petitioners to show, prima facie, that the dispute raised against them by the applicants was not bona fide, rather mala fide, and it cannot be said that he held a mini trial.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector, Jehanabad, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed by the applicants against the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, dropping the proceedings? 2. Whether the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, was justified in holding that the claim of batai put forward by the applicants is not bonafide, and no prima facie case has been made out?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Collector, Jehanabad, exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the appeals even after holding that there is no provision for an appeal as laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Shivanandan Roys case reported in 1980 B. L. J. R. Page 41. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shrisht dhawan V/s. Shaw Brothers, (1992) 1 S C C 534, wherein it was held that "no statutory authority or tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter which the Statute does not confer on it". 2. The Court held that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, was well within his jurisdiction to make a casual reference to the documents filed by the petitioners to show, prima facie, that the dispute raised against them by the applicants was not bona fide, rather mala fide, and it cannot be said that he held a mini trial. The Court relied on the judgment of a Special Bench of this Court in Dhanji Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1979 Patna 259, wherein it was held that "the Collector has to find out a prima facie case and, in finding out a prima facie case, he cannot shut out the landlord from appearing before him and showing that the proceeding sought to be initiated is mala fide and baseless".

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and quashed the impugned orders of the Collector, Jehanabad, setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and remitting the case for disposal after constituting Batai Boards.