Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
S.R. Sinha and Amir Das, JJ.
Card Board Products (Gomia) & others... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar and others For the Petitioners... Respondents.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2325 of 1993 (R)
Decided on : 19.8.1993
BIHAR PUBLIC LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT - SECTION 3 - NOTICE - BIAS - JURISDICTION - FACTUAL DISPUTE - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - REASONABLE SUSPICION OF BIAS - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S JURISDICTION - FACTUAL ISSUES - PRELIMINARY ISSUES - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - RULE OF LAW - ABUSE OF POWER - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - POSSESSION - HINDERANCE - COSTS:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a partnership firm and its partners, sought to quash notices issued under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (the Act) alleging encroachment on public land. They claimed to have acquired the land through a registered deed of sale and raised a bonafide dispute regarding ownership. The petitioners also alleged bias and illegal actions by the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no. 8) and sought a direction to forbear from taking any action pursuant to the impugned notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had a real apprehension of bias against respondent no. 8, who had prejudged the issue and created a likelihood of bias. The court also noted that the petitioners had raised a bonafide dispute regarding the ownership of the land, making summary proceedings under the Act unsuitable.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had a real apprehension of bias against respondent no. 8, the Anchal Adhikari, who issued the impugned notices? 2. Whether the petitioners' claim of a bonafide dispute regarding ownership of the land barred summary proceedings under the Act? 3. Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, had jurisdiction to consider the matter and determine the jurisdictional facts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the test of 'reasonable suspicion of bias' and held that the petitioners had a real apprehension of bias against respondent no. 8, as evidenced by his prejudgment of the issue and illegal actions. The court relied on the principles of natural justice and the need for justice to be seen to be done. 2. The court recognized that in cases involving a disputed question of title, summary proceedings under the Act may not be an appropriate remedy. It held that the jurisdictional fact of a bonafide dispute could be brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, who would determine the same at the first instance. 3. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, to consider the matter and determine the jurisdictional facts, including the existence of a bonafide dispute regarding ownership of the land.
Final Decision: 1. The court directed respondent no. 8 to forbear from taking any action pursuant to the impugned notices. 2. The court directed the petitioners to file their show cause before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. 3. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, to consider all aspects of the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. The court directed that the petitioners' possession should not be disturbed, and no hindrance or obstacle should be created in running their factory till a final order was passed under the Act.
S. B. Sinha, J.
The petitioners in this application have, inter-alia, prayed for quashing of a notice dated 26.7.1993 as contained in Annexure 18 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith another notice dated 4.8.1993 issued by the Anchal Adhikari
(respondent no. 8) purported to be under section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (here-in-after to be referred to as 'the Act') whereby and where under the petitioners have been directed to show cause as to why the encroachment allegedly made by the petitioners in Plot No. 278 of village Sasbera, measuring an area of 0.77 acrcs shall not be directed to be removed.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to state the fact of the mailer in great details.
3. The petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm and petitioners no. 2 to 5 are its partners. Petitioner No.1 is a owner of the factory which produces fibre board containers for packing and transporting explosives. As the respondents allegedly had been interfering with the affairs of the said business, the petitioners filed a writ petition being Cr.W.J.C. No. 266 of 1993 (R) and by order dated 5.7.1993 as contained in Annexure 1 to this writ petition, the petitioners were directed to raise all the pleas available to them before the trial Magistrate before whom Complaint Case No. 88 of 1993 was pending, According to the petitioners, they have acquired the land in question by reason of a registered deed of sale in the year 1968. They further purchased 2 decimals of land in plot no. 280 in the year 1979 and, according to the petitioners, they got their names mutated in relation to the aforementioned purchased land in the office of the State of Bihar.
4. The contention of the respondents on the other hand appeared to he that 0.77 acres of land of the aforementioned plot belonged to the Stale of Bihar. The petitioner no.1 by letter dated 17.9.1992 was directed by respondent no.8 to produce documents of title without disclosing any purpose therefor. The General Manager of the petitioner firm filed an application for supply of the certified copy of the order-sheet before filing any show cause on 25.9.1992 but the same was not received and, as such, the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bermo at Tenughat (respondent no. 6) making complaints against the behaviour of respondent no. 8 and pursuant thereto, by order dated 14.10.1992, respondent no. 6 directed respondent no. 8 to furnish a copy of the order sheet. The petitioners stated that despite the aforesaid directions, no copies were supplied to the petitioners. By another order dated 30.4.1993 upon a complaint made in this regard, respondent no. 6 directed respondent no. 8 not to enter into the premises of petitioner no.1, but despite the same, respondent no. 8 directed its subordinate staff, Circle Inspector, Amin and Head Clerk with armed forces to enter into the premises forcibly and demolished the factory shed etc. According to the petitioners, they damaged card board containers worth Rs. 12,000/- and assaulted and abused Darwan, Starr and other employees of petitioner no.1. The matter was again reported to the respondent no.6 on 19.5.1993 and some employees of the Company belonging to Harijan community also wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (respondent no.4) on 24.5.1993. The management stall also filed a complaint petition in the court of the Additional Chief .Judicial Magistrate Bermo at Tenughat against respondent no. 8 and of her officers and by order dated 8.7.1993, Shri B.B. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in whose court the aforementioned complaint petition was transferred held that there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused persons. Thereafter a notice dated 9.7.1993 as contained in Annexure 14 to the writ petition was issued by respondent no. 8. On 12.7.1993, the petitioner lodged an inform
AI
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
