Kuldeep Mahto vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.K. Katriar, J.—Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, learned JC to Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, SC (Ceiling) for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Chitra Gupt Prasad for respondent No. 4 (Deo Narain Mahto @ Ganauri Mahto). This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 25.8.03 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Gaya in Land Ceiling Case No. 21/99-2000, whereby he has rejected the present petitioner''s application u/s 47 of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. This relates to the proceeding u/s 16(3) of the Act. The petitioner had purchased the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale from respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Thereafter respondent No. 4 filed an application u/s 16(3) of the Act claiming pre-emption with respect to the land in question which was allowed by order dt. 24.11.98 (Annexure 1), passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, in Case No. 14/98-99. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner (the vendee) preferred the statutory appeal which was disposed of by order 3.9.2001 (Annexure-3) by learned Collector of the district of Gaya in Case No. 21/99-2000. The petitioner thereafter filed an application u/s 47 of the Act before the learned Collector, stating therein that it would appear from the discussion in the appellate order dt. 3.9.2001 that the learned appellate authority after a discussion of the matter before him reached the conclusion that the pre-emption application was not maintainable but, however, by a mistake attributable by oversight to typographical error, the order in the end stated "rejected", whereas it was intended to be allowed. He, therefore, prays for necessary correction of the error in the order apparent on its face. The application u/s 47 has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the said appellate order was passed by his predecessor Collector of the district and, therefore, he would not like to interfere with the order. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the vendee.

I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears) to me from a perusal of the impugned order that the learned Collector has taken into account a completely irrelevant consideration while rejecting the application. The ground taken is that Amrit Lal Meena, the previous Collector of the district, had disposed of the appeal and, therefore, the application u/s 47 should have been filed before him alone. He has, therefore, declined to entertain the application u/s 47 of the Act. In one sense, it is a case of taking into account an irrelevant consideration, and in another sense is a case of misdirection. The successor Collector of the district is bound in law to entertain the application and dispose of the same on merits. The impugned order on the very face of it is bad in law and is accordingly set aside. The matter goes back on remand to the learned Collector of the district of Gaya to dispose of the application u/s 47 of the Act on merits and after consideration of the attendant circumstances. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.