Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
L. NARASIMHA REDDY & GOPAL PRASAD, JJ.
Jagarnath Das & Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
LPA No. 1189, 1490 of 2013 & CWJC No. 379 of 2012
Decided On : 21-01-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Mr. Pawan Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Mrs. Priya Gupta.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Sections 144, 145, 146 of Cr. P.C. have a limited scope, and aggrieved parties should approach the civil court for enforcement of their rights.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condoning Delay - Section 5 - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Sections 144, 145, 146 of Cr. P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The application was filed to condone the delay in preferring an appeal. The appeal related to a writ petition filed by the appellants against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The facts involved a dispute over agricultural land and the proceedings initiated under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Sections 144, 145, 146 of Cr. P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in preferring the appeal was justified and condoned the delay. The court also set aside the order passed by the Single Judge in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition. The court allowed the writ petitioners to work out their remedy in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in preferring the appeal, the validity of the orders passed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Sections 144, 145, 146 of Cr. P.C., and the scope of the proceedings under these provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in preferring the appeal was justified and allowed the appeal. The court also emphasized that the proceedings under the mentioned provisions were limited in scope and that the aggrieved party should approach the civil court for enforcement of its rights.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition, and allowed the writ petitioners to work out their remedy in accordance with the law.
I.A. No. 6798 of 2013
1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed with a prayer for condoning the delay of 362 days in preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1189 of 2013.
2. It is stated that the delay occurred for the reason that the appellants came to know about the order dated 9.7.2012 passed in the writ petition only in July 2013. Thereafter they consulted the counsel and the appeal has been filed immediately after obtaining the opinion.
3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, interlocutory application was filed raising the issue of maintainability of the appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The petitioners are said to have been granted Parchas in respect of alleged surplus land and they belong to the poor section of the society. It is also stated that learned Single Judge passed a prejudicial order without issuing notice to them. We are convinced with the reasons assigned for condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal. Delay is condoned.
6. I.A. No. 6798 of 2013 stands disposed of.
LPA No. 1189 of 2013
7. Respondent nos. 15 to 31 in CWJC No. 379 of 2012 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by respondent nos. 15 to 18 herein feeling aggrieved by an order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the respondent no.5, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Gogri, District Khagaria. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with certain directions.
8. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under.
9. One Sri Kamaldeo Narayan Singh the 1st petitioner in the writ petition held a large extent of agricultural land. He filed a declaration under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to him, he did not hold any land excess of ceiling limit. Alleging that respondent no.15 and other private respondents mentioned in the writ petition started encroaching the land by digging and removing soil therefrom, he approached the 5th respondent with a prayer to take necessary steps. The 5th respondent in turn, initially started a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. through order dated 13.10.2009. Stating that the said proceedings did not yield the expected result, he passed the order dated 30.12.2010, in exercise of powers under Section 145, Cr. P.C. This was followed by an order under Section 146, Cr. P.C. through which the property, i.e. the land was attached. Proceeding further, he appointed the Circle Officer, Parbatta, 7th respondent as Receiver. The 7th respondent in turn is said to have conducted the auction, of lease hold rights of the property. The 2nd writ petitioner, i.e. respondent no. 18 herein became the higher bidder.
10. After respondent no.18 emerged as the highest bidder in the auction conducted by the 7th respondent, it appears that the contesting respondents as well as the appellants made an attempt to dispossess her. The concerned authorities of the police and revenue department are said to have visited the land and ultimately through order dated 24.10.2011 the 5th respondent has withdrawn the proceeding initiated by him under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order was challenged in the writ petition.
11. During the pendency of the writ petition, Kamaldeo Narayan Singh died leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives being his widow Chandra Kala Singh, his son Rakesh Narayan Singh and his daughter Anita Singh. They were brought on record as petitioner nos. 1(a), (b) and (c), who are respondent nos. 15 to 17 in this appeal.
12. Respondent nos. 15 to 18, i.e. the writ petitioners pleaded that once the 5th respondent has assumed the possession of the property and attached it, there was no basis for him to withdraw the proceeding, abruptly. It was also pleaded that various questions raised before him ought to have been decided and direction should have been issued as to who, am
