Badshah Rai vs The State of Bihar

Seeking exception to an order dated 10.12.2015 and

11.12.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9030 of

2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 9072 of 2009 respectively and dismissing the

writ petition filed by the writ appellant challenging an order dated

20th of December, 2008 passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision

filed in the matter of deciding an issue under Section 32 of the Bihar

Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus

Land) Act, these appeals have been filed under Clause 10 of the

Letters Patent.

In the matter of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of

the Ceiling Act, the learned Writ Court and the Board of Revenue

have placed reliance on a spot inspection conducted by the D.C.L.R.

in Case No. 12/76-77 and 13/76-77 to hold that the applicant Paras

Nath Rai did not have any land adjoining to Plot Nos. 1237 and 1238.

The learned Writ Court also placing reliance on the aforesaid spot

inspection has non-suited the applicant.

The only question that was canvassed before us

primarily on behalf of the appellants was that the orders passed by the

original authority and the appellate authority have been set aside

based on this spot inspection and the findings recorded by the Board

of Revenue based on the same, whereas this spot inspection was

conducted without notice to the applicant, behind his back, in an ex

parte manner and, therefore, based on the same the findings recorded

by the Revisional Court namely the Board of Revenue and upholding

of the same by the learned Writ Court is clearly unsustainable as it

violates the principles of natural justice.

Even though learned counsel for the private

respondent tried to indicate that the order for spot inspection was

passed in the presence of the applicant, he was aware of the spot

inspection and the spot inspection was done correctly, we find that

the applicant in the writ petition itself has raised a question with

regard to the perverse spot inspection conducted behind his back

without granting him an opportunity of being present in the spot

inspection and the learned Writ Court has not adverted to consider

this aspect of the matter. Even in the order passed by the Board of

Revenue in the Revision Petition this question has not been properly

considered. That being so, on this ground alone, the matter has to be

remanded back to the Board of Revenue for considering as to whether

based on the spot inspection conducted by the D.C.L.R. as indicated

hereinabove the matter can be proceeded with.

Accordingly, finding the Board of Revenue to have

committed an error in relying upon the spot inspection which was

done as alleged based on the ex parte inspection conducted, we allow

this appeal, quash the order passed by the Writ Court and the Board

of Revenue on 20th of December, 2008 and remand the matter back to

the Board of Revenue to consider the question afresh after hearing all

concerned after deciding as to whether the spot inspection conducted

by the D.C.L.R. on 29.07.1998 is proper and based on the same

whether the decision can be taken after hearing all concerned. Let the

issue be decided by the Board of Revenue within a period of three

months from the date of appearance of the parties.

With the aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeals are

allowed. The Board of Revenue, if on due consideration feels that a

fresh report with regard to the factual aspect is required, he shall be

free to call for such report after following the due process of law.

With the aforesaid, we allow this appeal and dispose

of the same.