IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time frame, even in the absence of a specific limitation period, to prevent abuse of authority and protect settled rights.

ORDER :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the notice dated 13.02.2019 (at Annexure-8) issued by the respondent no.3 the Additional Collector, Ramgarh whereby a proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as “the Act, 1950” for the sake of brevity) has been initiated against the petitioner.

Further the petitioner has prayed to quash the notice dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent no. 6 the Circle Officer, Mandu, Ramgarh intimating about the initiation of proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act 1950.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the both these notice are bad and without jurisdiction. He submits that notice issued under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 could not have been issued after a lapse of considerable period (which is more than 67 years in this case) from the date of transfer. It is his case that the State cannot, take a circuitous route by initiating a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, against the petitioner and seek to evict him. As per him in O.S. No. 79 of 2004 between Kameshwar Prasad and others Vs. State and the petitioner, when Title was not declared in favour of the Kameshwar Prasad and others in the written statement filed by the State, in the aforesaid suit, has taken a stand that the jamabandi in favour of this petitioner has been opened after proper enquiry and after observing all formalities as required under law. The State has also taken a stand that the said order is not a collusive order. As per the petitioner, this statement clearly suggests that the opening of the jamabandi in the name of the petitioner is justified and in accordance with the law. Thus, now the respondent cannot backtrack and initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Another limb of the argument is that the Circle Officer, who has issued Annexure 7 (one of the impugned notice) is not a “Collector” under the Act, 1950 thus the notice which has been issued by the Circle Officer is bad and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the settlement is of the year 1937 i.e. prior to cut off date as prescribed under the Act of 1950 and that being so, the impugned notice which is of the year 2019 could not have been issued. He submits that even if no period of limitation is prescribed for initiating a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, that does not mean that the respondents has the power to initiate such proceeding at any point of time and in this case after more than 60 years. On this ground, he prays to quash the entire proceeding.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner has rushed to this Court by challenging the notice only. The grounds which the petitioner has taken in this writ petition should have been taken before the competent authority under the Act, 1950 who issued the notice, and initiated the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. On merits he submits that the transfers were clandestine, thus the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the petitioner after proper enquiry. He submits that there is already a veterinary hospital over the part of the plot of the land, thus the petitioner could not have been transferred the land.

4. In reply Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the veterinary clinic has not been constructed on the part of the land which belongs to the petitioner and his client has not claim over the same.

5. From the pleadings of the parties and the prayer made in this writ petition, I find that the petitioner has challenged the notice at Annexure-7 issued by the Circle Officer, Mandu (Ramgarh) in Record No. 7/18-19 under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. By the aforesaid notice, Circle Officer has only directed the petitioner to remain present along with all the documents at specified place to prove his ownership over the land situated in P.S. Mandu Kha