Hari Ballabh Narain vs The State of Bihar and Others

G.C. Bharuka, J.—The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the notice dated 3.2.1984 issued by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar u/s 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This notice is enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The prayer is also for quashing of the entire proceeding in Revision No. 75 of 1983-84.

The petitioner is the Chairman of the Vidyapati Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Limited. It appears that plot Nos. 43 and 44 has been recommended for construction of several collony under HUDCO plan in Mauza Dhibadih, P.S. Jasidih. Subsequently, a part of plot No. 23 of this mauza was sought to be settled in favour of the petitioner, acting for and on behalf of the Housing Cooperative, society, by Sri Ashutosh Dutt, the mool raiyat of the village. As such an application was filed before the sub-divisional officer, Deoghar, who pursuant to the enquiry held in this regard consented to the said settlement by his order dated 21.1.1983. This order is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. After about almost a year, the petitioner was served with the impugned notice (Annexure-1) which, inter alia, contained that the said settlement of land was made contrary to the provisions of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised various pleas in support of his contentions that the impugned proceedings are bad, illegal and fit to be quashed. But I think the present writ application can be disposed of on a short issue. u/s 59 of the Act, suo motu power of revision can be exercised either by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. The expression "Deputy Commissioner" has been defined under Clause (vii) of Section 4 of the Act which reads as under:

Section 4(vii) "Deputy Commissioner" means the Deputy Commissioner of the Santhal Parganas and includes-

(a) Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer or Deputy Collector empowered by the Government to discharge any of the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under this Act; and

(b) any Deputy Collector, whom, subject to the control of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner may, by general or special order, authorise to exercise any of his functions under this Act.

According to the aforesaid statutory definition, at the material time only the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas was competent to exercise the revisional powers u/s 59, Thought at the time of initiation of the impugned proceedings and issuance of the impugned notice Santhal Parganas had already been bifurcated in four districts, namely, Dumka, Sahebganj, Godda and Deoghar but the Deputy Commissioners of these districts had not been conferred with the aforesaid revisional powers u/s 59 of the Act. The powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act have been conferred on the Deputy Commissioners of said four districts by Bihar Santhal Parganas Bidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1984 (Bihar Act, 1984) which came into force on 26th May, i9S Section By this amending Act the word "Santhal Parganas" as appeared in the above quoted clause of Section 4 was substituted by the words Duraka, Sahebganj, Godda and Deoghar.

Therefore, at the material time i.e. on 3.2.1984 when the impugned notice (Annexure-1) was issued the Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar had no jurisdiction u/s 59 of the Act to initiate suo motu revisional proceedings.

Under the facts and the circumstances stated above, I have no option but to quash the impugned proceedings and the notice as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application.

This writ application is allowed, There will be no order as to costs.