Kedar Nath Choudhary and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the State Respondents. No one appears on behalf of the private Respondents No. 4 to 9 in spite of the notices having been served upon them. In this writ application, the prayer of the Petitioners is for quashing of the order, dated 14.9.93 passed by the Respondent Collector as well as the order, dated 20.7.92 passed by the Respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar, in purported exercise of power u/s 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, has passed the impugned order by which he has declared the private Respondents as Bataidars with respect to the land, In question. It appears that this order was passed behind the back of the Petitioner on the basis of the statement made by some of the villagers and that too, in the Janta Darbar. Admittedly, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, without following the procedure, as envisaged under various clauses of Section 48E of the Act has passed the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the order, dated 20.7.92 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application being wholly without jurisdiction is hereby quashed. It appears that the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed only on the ground of limitation. As has been stated above, the order of the Respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, was passed behind the back of the Petitioners. It is alleged that the Petitioners had no knowledge of the order passed by the Respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and, as such, the appeal could not be filed within time. The appeal was, however, filed along with the petition for condonation of delay, which was dismissed by the Respondent Collector on the ground of limitation though without going into the merits of the case. After having gone through the impugned orders, and the materials on record, I find that the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, which vitiated the entire proceeding including the order passed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the orders, dated 14.9.92 and 20.7.92 passed by the Respondent authorities are hereby quashed and this writ application is, thus, allowed.