Back
1991 Supreme(Pat) 382
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B.K. ROY & I.P. SINGH, JJ.
Jagarnath Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & other – Respondents
CWJC No. 1301 of 1991
Decided On: 16.9.1991
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tara Kant Jha & Chittaranjan Sinha.
For the State: Mr. P.K. Sahi.
Headnote:Bihar Land Reforms (fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 Section 45B–reopening of the case–ceiling case was reopened in 1975 and decided in the year 1980–no appeal or revision filed against the order which became final–order of reopening of the case again on the same facts–matter in issue became final and earlier order operates as resjudicata and notice as such is quashed.
Resjudicata–Principles of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata applies to the proceedings under the Act.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The petitioner, Jagarnath Mishra, filed a writ application to quash a notice issued by the Collector of Saharsa, dated 17.11.1990, which sought to reopen proceedings under the Land Ceiling Case No. 11/1973-74 (!) .
-
The petitioner argued that the case had previously been reopened in 1978 and decided in 1980, and since no appeal or revision was filed against that order, the matter became final (!) .
-
The petitioner contended that reopening the case again on the same facts was barred by the principle of resjudicata, as the earlier order had become final and the matter was res judicata (!) (!) (!) .
-
The respondents acknowledged that the case was reopened on the same grounds but argued that the earlier decision was made hastily and questioned its validity (!) (!) .
-
The court accepted the argument that the earlier order, having become final, operated as res judicata, and therefore, the subsequent notice to reopen the case was not sustainable (!) (!) .
-
The court did not decide on the question of malafide but found the petition meritorious on the grounds of res judicata (!) .
-
Consequently, the court allowed the writ application and quashed the impugned notice, with no order on costs due to the peculiar circumstances of the case (!) (!) .
In summary, the court held that the earlier final order barred reopening the case on the same facts, applying the principle of res judicata, and accordingly, the notice to reopen proceedings was quashed.
B.K. ROY & I.P. SINGH, JJ.
Through this application which was filed on 19.2.1991 a prayer has been made to quash the notice dated 17.11.1990 of the Collector, Saharsa (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure 4, issued to the petitioner to show cause why the proceeding in Land Ceiling Case No. 11/1973-74, be not reopened under section 45B of the Act for the reason stated therein on the grounds of resjudicata and malafide.
The most question raised by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that earlier also the proceeding in question was reopened vide order dated 1.5.1978 (Annexure 2) on the same facts stated in the notice in question and the matter was decided by order dated 29.9.1980 as contained in Annexure 3 No revision or appeal having been preferred against the aforementioned order dated 29.9.1980 the matter in issue became final and operates as resjudicata and accordingly the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.
He also took us to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit dated 29.4.1991 filed today on behalf of the respondents wherein while replying the statements made in paragraph 17 of the writ application, it has been stated that the case was reopened on the same ground.
Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned G. P. No.7 very fairly accepts the legal position, He, however submits that the decision was earlier taken up hurredly.
Mr. Jha also submits that even an crronious order operates as resjudicata.
The earlier order in absence of its setting aside became final. The principle of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata applies to proceedings under the Bihar Land reforms (fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplusland) Act, 1961, as well.
The submission of Mr. Jha, therefore that the earlier decision is operative as resjudicata is therefore accepted.
We, however, do not feel necessary to decide the question of malafide as this petition succeeds on the ground aforesaid.
In the result this writ application is allowed impugned notice, as contained in Annexure 4 is, accordingly, quashed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances however there shall be no order as cost.
Application allowed.
