Back
1980 Supreme(Pat) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Hari Lal Agrawal, J.
Mahanth Ramswaroop Giri - Appellants
Vs.
The Commissioner and Others - Respondent
C.W.J.C. No. 207 of 1977
Decided On: 06.09.1980
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Kailash Roy and Binod Kumar Roy
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. Rewati Raman Saran for the Respondent No. 7, Chunni Lal, G.P. 5 and Santosh Kumar Sinha for the State
A Bataidari Board must make a genuine endeavor to promote an amicable settlement between the parties before proceeding with an inquiry. When the Collector disagrees with the Board's findings, the Collector must follow the procedure prescribed in Section 48E(10) of the Bataidari Act, which includes making an endeavor for amicable settlement.
Headnote:
BATAIDARI ACT - SECTION 48E(3), 48E(5), 48E(6), 48E(7), 48E(8), 48E(9), 48E(10) - Bataidari Board - Endeavour for amicable settlement - Collector's power to disagree with Board's findings - Procedure to be followed.
Fact of the Case:
A Bataidari Board was constituted to promote an amicable settlement between a landlord and an under-raiyat. The Board made a casual attempt at settlement, which the landlord did not respond to. The Board then proceeded with an inquiry and submitted a report in favor of the under-raiyat. The Collector disagreed with the Board's findings and set aside its report. The landlord challenged the Collector's order on the ground that the Board had not made a genuine effort to promote a settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Board's attempt at settlement was not a genuine endeavor as required by Section 48E(6) of the Bataidari Act. The Court further held that the Collector was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 48E(10) when disagreeing with the Board's findings, which includes making an endeavor for amicable settlement. Since the Collector had not followed this procedure, his order was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bataidari Board had made a genuine endeavor to promote an amicable settlement between the parties? 2. Whether the Collector was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 48E(10) when disagreeing with the Board's findings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 48E(6) of the Bataidari Act to require a genuine endeavor by the Bataidari Board to promote an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court held that the Board's casual attempt at settlement, which the landlord did not respond to, did not amount to a genuine endeavor. 2. The Court interpreted Section 48E(8) of the Bataidari Act to require the Collector to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 48E(10) when disagreeing with the Board's findings. The Court held that this procedure includes making an endeavor for amicable settlement.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Collector's order and remitted the matter back to the Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Hari Lal Agrawal, J.
1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the ORDER :dated 3-2-1976 (Annexure 5) passed by the Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari (Respondent no. 2) in purported exercise of his appellate power under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act. By this ORDER :the Additional Collector has set aside the ORDER :of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sikraha, dated 7-6-1975 (Annexure 4). The Deputy Collector by his said ORDER :has held that the claim of Bijuli Singh (Respondent no. 7) as the Bataidar of the petitioner, was false and baseless. Mr. Kailash Roy, appearing in support of this petition; has advanced two main grounds for setting aside the ORDER :of the Additional Collector, namely, (1) the Additional Collector while writing an ORDER :of reversal has not considered all the reasons and grounds taken into consideration by the Deputy Collector for rejecting the claim of the Bataidar and (2) in any event, no endeavour having been made to bring about amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties at any stage, the entire proceeding was vitiated.
2. Now I may state the relevant facts in brief. The proceeding was initiated on an application of respondent no. 7 by the Deputy Collector in the year 1974. A Bataidari Board was then constituted with the Sarpanch of Bakhri Gram Panchayat as its Chairman (respondent no. 4) in spite of the objections raised by the petitioner. The Sarpanch then submitted his report on 16-1-1973 (Annexure 2) to the Deputy Collector recommending the case of the Bataidar. The petitioner's Panch filed an objection to the report of the Sarpanch before the Deputy Collector, who heard the parties and by his ORDER :dated 7-6-1975 (Annexure 4) rejected the claim of the Bataidar as already said above. The main findings recorded, by the Deputy Collector may be noted which are as follows:--
(i) The Bataidar was not a settled raiyat of the village.
(ii) It was not clear whether attempts to bring about any amicable settlement were made by the Board and, if not, whether the Sarpanch heard both the parties by a proper notice at the time of taking evidence of the witnesses.
(iii) It was apparent that extraordinary haste had been shown in submitting the report inasmuch as the Board took action on 8-1-75 and submitted the final report only on 16-1-75 i.e., within nine days.
(iv) The witnesses examined by the Bataidar were not competent and reliable.
3. On appeal being taken by the Bataidar, the Additional Collector recorded the following findings in disagreement with the Deputy Collector.
(a) The Chairman had made endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement.
(b) The Bataidar was resident of the village in question.
(c) The witnesses examined by the Bataidar were quite competent and reliable.
(d) No irregularity was committed in following the procedure by the Board.
On these findings, as already said earlier, the Additional Collector set aside the ORDER :of the Deputy Collector and accepted the case of the Bataidar as correct.
4. Sitting in writ jurisdiction I do not propose to discuss the case of the rival parties on their merits in the sense of appreciating the evidence adduced by them in support of their respective cases; rather the finding of the appellate court that the claim of the Bataidar was acceptable on the evidence cannot be interfered with. I, therefore, proceed to examine the correctness of the second point advanced by Mr. Kailash Roy, namely, the alleged failure on the part of the Bataidari Board to make an endeavour for an amicable settlement between the parties. The contradictory findings recorded by the two authorities have already been noticed above. The only material that is available on the record and was relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties is the relevant ORDER :sheet of the Bataidari Board contained in Annexure 8. After receipt of the record on 8-1-1975 the neat date fixed
