Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Jyoti Saran, J.
Sudha Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9252 of 1993
Decided On : 05-10-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Shri Nandan Pd. Singh and Mr. Naresh Nandan, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG-10
The main legal point established is that an order must be speaking and within the jurisdiction of the authority issuing it.
Headnote:
Cancellation of Demand - Land Reforms - The court quashed the order cancelling the demand created in the name of the petitioner, citing lack of jurisdiction and non-speaking order by the Deputy Collector. The court found support in previous judgments and noted the absence of a counter affidavit from the State.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order cancelling the demand created in their name by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the order to be non-speaking and lacking jurisdiction, quashing it and allowing the writ petition.
Issues: The issues raised were the non-speaking nature of the order and the lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to cancel the Jamabandi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and the absence of a counter affidavit from the State to support its decision to quash the order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 23.07.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad in Demand Cancellation Case No. 14/1992-93.
Jyoti Saran, J.
Heard Mr. Shri Nandan Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, whereby the demand created in the name of the petitioner in 1963 vide Annexure-1 has been cancelled on a mere recommendation of the Circle Officer.
3. The writ petition was admitted for hearing vide order passed on 23.03.1994 and is taken up for hearing today.
4. Two grounds have been raised by Mr. Singh to question the order, namely:
(a). The order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, impugned at Annexure 3, is non-speaking; and
(b). The order is wholly without jurisdiction as no jurisdiction is vested in the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms to cancel the Jamabandi.
5. Learned Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the following judgments:
(i). 1978 BBCJ 323 (Harihar Singh vs. Addl. Collector, I/C Land Reforms.)
(ii). 1983 PLJR 727 (Khiru Gope & Ors. vs. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui & Ors.)
(iii). 1990 (2) PLJR 819 (D.N. Jatia vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)
(iv). 2005 (2) PLJR 381 (Bhola Jha vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)
(v). 2007 (Supp.) PLJR 273 (Suresh Yadav & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)
6. It is unfortunate that though this writ petition is pending for quarter of a Century but no counter affidavit is filed by the State in opposition of the issues raised. Learned Counsel for the State is also not in a position to contest the stand in view of judicial pronouncement noted above and a bare perusal of the order impugned would confirm that it is mechanical and does not assign reasons for such cancellation.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 23.07.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad in Demand Cancellation Case No. 14/1992-93 cannot be upheld and is accordingly quashed.
8. The writ petition is allowed.
