Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.M.Prasad, J.
Jyotsna Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6753 of 1988 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1992
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 32-B - RE-OPENING OF PROCEEDINGS - FRESH DISPOSAL - NO FINAL PUBLICATION UNDER SECTION 11(1) - NO RES JUDICATA - NO ILLEGALITY IN RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the orders passed by various authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, quashing the order for final publication of draft statement showing surplus land and directing initiation of separate proceedings against certain individuals. The petitioners contended that the authorities had no jurisdiction to re-open the case under Section 32-A of the Act, and that the findings arrived at earlier in respect of the same matter would act as res judicata.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings were pending on the date of commencement of Bihar Act 55 of 1982 and that there was no final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act. Therefore, the proceeding was rightly disposed of afresh under Sec. 32-B of the Act. The court further held that the findings arrived at earlier would not be hit by the principle of res judicata and that the authority exercising powers under Sec. 32-B of the Act had to act independently in disposing of the proceeding afresh.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities had jurisdiction to re-open the case under Section 32-A of the Act? 2. Whether the findings arrived at earlier in respect of the same matter would act as res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 32-B of the Act allowed for fresh disposal of proceedings pending on the date of commencement of Bihar Act 55 of 1982, where final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act had not been made. 2. The principle of res judicata would not apply to findings arrived at earlier in a proceeding that was re-opened under Section 32-B of the Act, as the authority exercising powers under this section had to act independently in disposing of the proceeding afresh.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no illegality in the orders impugned.
R.M.Prasad, J.
1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order passed by various authorities under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquistion of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as contained in Annexures 5, 9 and 10 to the writ petition and for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the title and possession of the petitioners over the lands in dispute.
2. According to the petitioners, in short the facts of the case are that a Land Ceiling Case No. 46 of 1974-75 was initiated against Late Shri Panchanan Mukherjee, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 and in obedience to the notice Late Shri Mukharjee had filed a return on 30-7-1975. After receipt of the verification reports from the respective Anchal Adhikaris a draft publication was made on 30-6-1966 showing 128.06 acres of land as surplus and Shri Mukherjee was allowed to retain 15.24 acres of land. Against this an objection was filed under Sec. 10(3) of the Act and after hearing the matter an order for final publication was made. Against this order the petitioners filed appeal and later a revision and finally before the Member, Board of Revenue, being Revision Case No. 485 of 1977 the aforesaid revision was allowed and the Board of Revenue after setting aside the orders impugned, remitted back the matter to the concerned authorities for fresh disposal in accordance with law. On 9-1-1981, the Additional Collector Bettiah on remand heard the matter and finally passed an order dated 9-1-1981 holding that there was no surpuls land of the land-holder and further directed for initiation of separate proceeding against Shri Chandi Mai, a deity, Smt. Kanaklata Roy Choudhary and Smt. Rekha Battacharya, the two sisters of late husband of petitioner No. 1. A true copy of the Additional Collector, Bettiah has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Thereafter fresh land ceiling proceedings were initiated against the three, referred to above, being Ceiling Case Nos. 292/8182, 293/81-82 and 294/81-82. It has been alleged that although the proceeding against the land-holder Shri Panchanan Mukharjee and consequently, against the petitioners had concluded, it was sought to be re-opened under Sec. 32-A of the Act, vide Annexure 4 and a draft publication was made ignoring the earlier order (Annexure 2). Notices were again served on the husband of petitioner No. 1. The land-holder in terms of the notice filed an objection under Sec. 10(3) of the Act in which besides raising other objection, inter alia, contended that the authorities had no jurisdiction to re-open the case under Sec. 32-A of the Act. A true copy of the said objection has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
3. On 1-9-1983 the D. C. L. R. disposed of the said proceeding by his order, as contained in Annexure 5 against which order an appeal was filed before the Collector, which was numbered as R.A. No, 334 of 1983-84. The said appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 3-9-1984 against which a revision was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue which was numbered as Revision Case No. 363 of 1984. The said revision was allowed by the Board vide order dated 4-9-1985 and the case was again remitted back to the Collector, West Champaran for reconsideration. It appears that, in the meantime, land-holder Shri Panchanan Mukharjee died in November, 1984 and an application was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Board Revision Case No. 364 of 1984 for substitution of their names as heirs of Late Panchanan Mukherjee. This fact has been mentioned in the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, Appeal No. 334 of 1984-85 was again dismissed on 20-1-1987 by the Collector without following the direct
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
