Suryadeo Singh and Others vs Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and Others

In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated the 22nd September, 1975, marked as Annexure 9 to this writ application, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dinapur (Respondent No. 1), postponing passing of final orders in Batai Case No. 250 of 1874-77 in which a compromise petition has been filed by the parties, on the ground that certain ceiling cases involving the same lands are pending.

The aforesaid prayer has been made on the following averments made in the writ application:

In 1349 Fasli, the petitioners'' ancestor Kishun Singh took Batai settlement of 5.7 acres of land, the details of which are to be found at pages 3 to 5 of the writ application, from Sudama Prasad Singh, ancestor of respondents No. 2 to 11, at a Nazrana of Rs. 600/-. Sub-sequently, in 1354 Fasli a Hukumnama (Annexure 1) by way of Yaddast in support of the aforesaid settlement was issued in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners. Since the date of the Batai settlement the petitioner''s ancestor and thereafter the petitioners continued cultivating the aforesaid lands as Bataidars under the ancestor of the said respondents and thereafter under the respondents till 1974, in which year Respondents No. 2 to 11 tried to create trouble and disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the said Batai lands. Subsequently, on the 23rd September, 1974, the petitioners tiled a petition (Annexure 2) u/s 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act before respondent No. 1 for declaration of their rights as Bataidars in respect of the aforesaid lands. That petition was registered as Batai Case No. 250 of 1974 and a show cause notice was issued against respondent No. 2 to 11 by respondent No. 1 on the same date. On the 23rd December, 1974 respondents No. 2 to 11 filed a show cause (Annexure 3) alleging that the petitioners gave up Batai cultivation long ago and praying for rejection of their petition. On the 2nd January, 1975 respondent No. 1 ordered for issue of notice for constitution of a Board u/s 48E (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In response to this notice, the petitioners nominated one Shri Tipan Singh as their Panch and respondents 2 to 11 nominated one Shri Ram Balak Verma as their Panch vide Annexures 4 and 5. Respondent No. 1 by his order dated the 6th May, 1975, nominated one Shri Ram Jatan Singh as the Chairman of the Board. The Board made an attempt to bring about amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, as a result of which the petitioners and respondente No. 2 to 11 filed a compromise petition (Annexure 6) before the Chairman of the Board, in which the claims of the petitioners were accepted by respondents No. 2 to 11. The Board by its order dated the ,15th September, 1975 (Annexure 7) accepted this compromise. This was followed by a report to this effect (Annexure 8) submitted by the Board to respondent No. 1, requesting the latter to pass final order on it. On receipt of this report, respondent No. 1 on the 22nd September, 1975, passed the impugned order to the effect that as Land Ceiling Cases No. 1 to 8 of 1973-74 concerning the same lands were pending, final orders in this case (Batas Case No. 250 of 1974-75) would be passed after the disposal of the aforesaid land ceiling cases.

The petitioners have also filed three supplementary affidavits stating therein that the petitioners have less than four acres of land and respondends No. 2 to 11 have 227 acres of land : that respondent No. 2 had also filed a petition before respondent No. 1 in Land Ceiling Case No. 8 of 1973 stating that on most of his land there are Bataidars: and that on the basis of that petition, by a notification published in the Patna District Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 21st June, 1976, the surplus land of respondent No. 2 was notified, from which it is apparent that the lands claimed by the petitioners in Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-75 have been decared as surplus lands. It is further stated in one of the supplementary affidavits, that, on the basis of the above facts and on the basis of the fact that Land Ceiling Cases No. 1 to 8 of 1973-74 have been disposed of, the petitioners filed an application (Annexure 10) before respondent No. 1, for passing final orders in the Batai Case, and on this petition respondent No. 1 ordered that as a writ case is pending in the High Court, no order can be passed in the matter-vide copy of the order at Annexure 11.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating that u/s 22(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act the claim of an under raiyat, who is to be recognised as an occupancy raiyat, can only be decided when the land vests in the ''instant case, the land in question has only been notified u/s 15(1) of the Act and has not vested in the State, and, therefore, final order has not been passed regarding the claim of the petitioners as under-raiyats.

Mr. Kailash Roy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the action of Respondent No. 1 in not passing orders is wholly illegal, inasmuch as under Sub-section (8) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, he is bound to pass orders after the proceeding is submitted to him by the Board appointed under the said Section. Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 48E lay down the procedure which has to be followed by the Board after a reference of a Batai Case. Under Sub-section (6), after the parties appear, the Board is bound to make an effort to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute, and, in case such an amicable settlement is arrived at, the Board is bound to submit a report, containing the terms on which the settlement is brought, to the Collector, who (the Collector) may dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the report. Sub-section (7) provides that where no settlement is brought about, an inquiry will be made and the Board will submit its final report on the dispute, recording its findings, to the Collector, who may dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the findings. In case of a disagreement with the report or the findings of the Board, the Collector has to follow the procedure laid down in Sub-section (8), which reads as follows:

(8) in case of disagreement with the report or findings on the Board, the Collector shall, after recording his reasons for such disagreement and after giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make such enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary and on being satisfied that-

(i) the person threatened with ejectment is an under-Raiyat, the Collector shall declare the threatened ejectment illegal and direct that the landlord shall not interfere with the possession of the under-Raiyat in his tenancy or any portion thereof ;

(ii) the land under dispute is in the tenancy of the under-Raiyat, the Collector shall declare possession of the under-Raiyat and order the crop or produce, or the sale-proceeds thereof, as the case may be, to be divided between the under-Raiyat and his landlord in accordance with the provisions of Sections 69 to 71 of the Act;

(iii) the person alleged to have been ejected was an under-Raiyat of the disputed land on the date of ejectment and was ejected within twelve years before the commencement of proceeding under this Section in contravention of Section 89, the Collector shall order that the landlord, or, where any other person, is in possession of the land comprised in the under-Raiyat''s tenancy or portion thereof under any claim derived from the landlord, such person shall restore the under-Raiyat to possession of the tenancy or portion from which he was so ejected.

Sub-section (9) lays down that the orders of the Collector under Sub-sections (6), (7) or (8) shall be in writing and shall state the reasons on which it is made and the period, which shall not exceed six months from the date of the order, within which his order shall be carried out. Sub-section (11) provides that the person disobeying the order of the Collector shall be on a complaint filled by the Collector, punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Sub-section (13) lays down that no Civil or Criminal Court shall have any jurisdiction over the subject-matter of dispute after a proceeding is initiated under Sub-section (1) by the Collector, save as expressly provided in this Act.

In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, before whom the proceeding is pending, has to dispose of the proceeding under the B.T. Act. lie cannot keep the proceeding pending indefinitely. He has to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Act one way or the other. We are not for a moment suggesting as to what orders he should pass, nor it is a matter for our consideration, as, in the first instance, it is for Respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders. It seems that the pendency of this application has also been standing in the way of the Collector in disposing of the proceeding pending before him, as would appear from his order dated the 19th July, 1976 (Annexure ''11''). We accordingly allow this application and direct Respondent No. 1 to dispose of the Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-75, as expeditiously as possible, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.