Back
High Court of Patna
S.B. Sinha, J.
Ghanshyam Pandit and others – Petitioners.
Versus
Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and others – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2718 of 1982
Decided On : 24.9.1987
SANTHAL PARGANAS TENANCY (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1949 - SECTION 32 - SECTION 33 - SETTLEMENT OF WASTE LAND - NOTICE - NATURAL JUSTICE - The court held that the impugned orders passed by the authorities under Section 32 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, were bad in law as the petitioners were not given due notice and an opportunity of hearing before passing the orders. The court also held that Section 32 of the Act will have application only in respect of such cases where settlements have been made after coming into force of the said Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were settled with certain agricultural lands in the years 1935, 1944, and 1950. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, seeking cancellation of the settlement made in favor of the petitioners and settlement of the same in their favor. The respondent no. 3, purporting to act as Collector under the provisions of the Act, called for a report from the Karamchari, who submitted a report stating that the settlements were made in favor of the petitioners and they were in possession thereof. However, without serving any notice upon the petitioners, the respondent no. 3 passed an order directing the petitioners to be evicted from the lands. The petitioners preferred an appeal and a revision application, but both were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned orders were bad in law as the petitioners were not given due notice and an opportunity of hearing before passing the orders. The court also held that Section 32 of the Act will have application only in respect of such cases where settlements have been made after coming into force of the said Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the authorities under Section 32 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, were bad in law as the petitioners were not given due notice and an opportunity of hearing before passing the orders? 2. Whether Section 32 of the Act will have application only in respect of such cases where settlements have been made after coming into force of the said Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioners were not given due notice and an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders. The court relied on the provisions of Section 32(2)(a) of the Act, which mandates the Deputy Commissioner to serve a notice on the parties interested in the settlement and to hear and decide the application after such notice. The court also relied on Rule 9 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950, which prescribes the manner in which the notice is to be served. 2. The court held that Section 32 of the Act will have application only in respect of such cases where settlements have been made after coming into force of the said Act. The court observed that the settlements which were made by the village Pradhan before coming into the force of the said Act cannot be modified or varied or set aside in terms of Section 32 of the said Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders passed by the authorities under Section 32 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949.
S.B. Sinha, J. – This writ application is directed against the orders dated 23.8.1979 passed by the respondent no. 3, 22.8.1980 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 23.3.1982 passed by the respondent no. 1 and as contained in Annexures 3, 4, and 5 to the writ application respectively.
2. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 by reason of the aforementioned order in purported exercise of their powers conferred upon them under section 32 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued a direction to the effect that the petitioners be evicted from certain agricultural lands.
3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and are not much in dispute.
4. The land in question comprising of plot nos. 29,439,608 and 616 of mouza Gundalia within Dumka Sub-Division in the district of Santhal Parganas were settled in favour of the petitioner in the years 1935, 1944 and 1950. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 purported to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said settlement filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder it was prayed, inter alia, that the settlement made in favour of the petitioner by village Pradhan be cancelled and the same be settled in favour of the said respondent. The said application is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. The aforementioned application was numbered as S.R. Case No. 159 of 1978-79.
5. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 purporting to act as Collector under the provisions of the aforementioned Act called for a report from the Karamchari. who allegedly after looking to the purchas issued to the petitioners and other documents submitted a report on 27.3.1979 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. In the said report the Karamehari categorically stated that the aforementioned settlements were made in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners are in possession thereof.
6. The respondent no. 3, however, did not serve any notice upon the petitioners and only on the basis of the aforementioned purported report as also on the basis of a purported local inspection held by him passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application.
7. The petitioners preferred an appeal from the said order before the respondent no. 2 which was also dismissed. The petitioners there after preferred a revision application before the respondent no. 1 and the same was also dismissed by reason of Annexure 5.
8. Mr. S.R. Ghoshal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the facts and circumstances, of this case the impugned orders are bad in law and in this connection he raised three fold contentions.
9. He firstly submitted that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 3 was passed –without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without issuing any notice in that regard. The second contention of Mr. Ghoshal is that section 32 of the said Act will have no application in relation to the settlement made in the years 1935 and 1944 as the said Act itself came into force with effect from 1.11.1949 and the said Act is only prospective-in operation.
10. Mr. Ghoshal thirdly submitted that in any event the purported objection made by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application was wholly illegal in as much as the same was done after the expiry of a period of, one year when the reclamation was commenced and in any event, the same was not done within five years as contemplated under section 33 of the said Act.
11. Mr. M.S. Madhup, learned Standing Counsel no. 1 appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1, on the other hand submitted that the principles of natural justice were substantially complied with as the petitioners were given an opportunity to place his documents before the Karamchari concerned and further even a local inspection was held by the respondent no. 3. Mr. Madhup further submitted that so far as other points rai
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
