AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through this writ application, which we are disposing of on its merit since notices have already been issued to and served on the respondents. The petitioner prays to quash an order dated 5.3.91 passed by the Additional Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram (respondent no. 3) in case no. 20/1 of 1991-92, by which he has rejected his prayer to release his lands measuring 3.50 acres, of class I land in plot nos. 225 and 228 in village Majhui. The portrayal of relevant facts lie in a very narrow compass. A land ceiling case State v. Satya Deo Singh was initiated under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for determination of the ceiling limit of Satya Deo Singh, the landholder. The aforesaid Satya Deo Singh filed an objection u/s 10 (3) of the Act before the Additional Collector asserting, inter alia, that the petitioner happens to be his Sikmidar (under raiyat) in regard to some lands. (The order u/s 10(3) of the Act annened as annexure ''1'' shows that at one place the Additional Collector has stated the petitioner to be the under Raiyat of five decimals of land, but in the last paragraph he has said five acres). The Additional Collector, however, after recording a finding to the effect that the writ petitioner is in possession of five acres of land, stated that this question need not be considered at this stage, nor these lands can be exempted and given to the landholder. Pursuant to the aforementioned order a notification u/s 15(1) of the Act was published in the district gazette of the Collectorate of Rohtas, Sasaram dated 5.3.84 acquiring 3.81 acres of lands in plot no. 177/145 appertaining, to Khata no. 74/3 of village Majhoi Anced. Sheo Sagar Dist. Rohtas as surplus of Puroshottam Singh, Satyadeo Singh Son of Rajendra Singh and Bhagwati Singh, son of Satyadeo Singh.
The petitioner asserts that he filed an application u/s 22 of the Act (annexure ''2'') before the Additional Collector for declaring him as Raiyat of the aforementioned lands. The Additional Collector by his order dated 12.3.84 (annexure 3) allowed his prayer on an undertaking from the petitioner that he will deposit the compensation amount. From the order dated 12.3.84 it appears that the Anchal Adhikari, Sheosagar and the Sub-divisional Officer, Rohtas, both were informed by him and the proceeding was closed. On 26.1.86 the petitioner filed an application as contained in Annexure-4 before the Additional Collector for determination of the compensation amount on the ground that he had not been given any notice as to how much of amount he has to deposit and that much time had passed. On 3.11.88 (wrongly stated as 98) the petitioner filed yet another application, as contained in Annexure 4/A) repeating his request. No order, however, was passed by the Additional Collector determining the compensation amount and/or directing the petitioner to deposit the same. However, the Anchal Adhikari, Sheosagar considered the proposal of the Halka Karamchari to make settlement of 5.81 acres of lands, referred to above, with eighteen persons, by his order dated 19.1.91 (which is part of the order sheet as contained in Annexure 5) and directed transmission of the records for its approval by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. From Annexure ''5'' it further appears that the proposal was approved by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as welt as the Subdivisional Officer. It further appears from Annexure ''5'' that red cards were prepared in regard to the lands in question and the Anchal Amin was directed to distribute them to the proposed eighteen allottees by going on the spot and also to effect the delivery of possession in their favour directing the records to be put up on 16.2.91.
Learned Junior counsel to learned Government Advocate states that thereafter on 10.2.91 delivery of possession was effected in favour of the allottees, who are respondent nos. 5 to 22 to the writ petition. By order dated 16.2.91 the Anchal Adhikari (which is part of Annexure 5) acknowledged the fact of distribution of the red cards etc. and directed the Halka Karamchari to issue Parwanas of the lands settled. From the further order dated 18.2.91 (annexure 5) it appears that the Anchal Adhikari noted that the allottees were present before him and made repeated requests to give them grant, on which he even proceeded to make a grant of Rs. 1000/- per acre.
The petitioner on 23.3.91 filed an application as confirmed in Annexure 6, before the Additional Collector asserting inter alia, that the lands ceiling case no. 262/76-77 was disposed of on 20.3.83 considering the unit which was granted to the landholder) as well as his possession as Sikmidar and requesting the Additiodal Collector to direct the Anchal Adhikari not to distribute the lands of the petitioner. The said petition (Annexure 6) was rejected by the Additional Collector by his order dated 5.8.91, as contained in Annexure ''7'', on the ground that the order dated 12.3.84 has not been nullified by the notification no. 117 dated 5.3.84 and consequently it has become ineffective ; and that the application was time barred inasmuch as it has been filed after more than seven years of the order dated 12.3.84 when the acquired land have already been distributed and, thus, there is no question of implementation of the aforementioned order.
The petitioner thereafter filed this writ application on 13.8.91. On 14.8.91 notices were issued to respondent nos. 5 to 22. Learned Government Advocate accepted notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Status quo of the lands in question as obtaining on that day was directed to be maintained.
The submissions:�
Mr. Jagdish Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits as follows :�
(i) The proceedings in the land ceiling case no. 762/76-77 were closed by the order dated 12.3.84 by the Anchal Adhikari. The petitioner time and again requested the Additional Collector through his applications (Annexures 4 and 4/A to inform him as to what amount and within what period he was required to make deposit of the amount which was to be determined by the Additional Collector. But for the reasons unknown to him the Additional Collector sat tight over the matter. From the counter affidavit it appears that it has been accepted as a fact, but no answer has been given to that rather the reasons mentioned in the impugned order have been reiterated finding fault with the petitioner though the fault was squarely of the Additional Collector;
(ii) On the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, the petitioner was a sikmidar and was in possession, and, thus, the facts stated in the order sheet, that delivery of possession was effected, is incorrect, inasmuch as no notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he ever dispossesed. He further emphasises that even the learned junior counsel to the learned Government Advocate never submitted that the petitioner was ever dispossessed and.
(iii) For the reasons, aforementioned, the writ application is fit to be allowed.
Learned J.C. to learned G.A submits as follows :�
(a) The petitioner not haying deposited the amount in question, was not entitled to possession of the land ;
(b) By the notification u/s 15(1) of the Act his right in title and interest in the land stood wiped out and there was no impediment in the way of the respondents 1 to 4 to make orders of settlements in favour of the respondent nos. 5 to 22. Learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 22 submitted as follows :�
(a) With these respondents settlements were made on 10.2.91 by issuing red cards and since then they are coming in peaceful possession, over which they are growing paddy and other crops; and
(b) No relief should be granted to the petitioner from this Court as he has not deposited the compensation money which was required to be deposited.
Our Findings :�
Section 22(1) of the Act runs as follows: -
If there is an under raiyat on the surplus land on the date it vests in the State under the provisions of this Act, such under raiyat shall, if he makes an application in this behalf in the prescribed manner, be allowed to retain as occupancy raiyat subject to payment in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period to the State Government the amount specified in this behalf in the Schedule, so much of the land as together with all the other lands held by him any where in the State does not exceed the area he may hold u/s 5.
A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that an application has to be made by an under raiyat to allow him to retain the acquired lands as its occupancy raiyat, though subject to the payment within the prescribed time to the State Government the amount specified in that behalf.
Section 23 (2) of the Act runs as follows :�
The Collector shall, after he has determined the amount of compensation in accordance with the rate specified in the schedule, prepare compensation assessment roll in the prescribed manner......
A bare perusal of the aforementioned, provisions makes it clear that it was the duty of the Collector, under the Act to determine the amount of compensation in accordance with the rate specified in the schedule and prepare compensation assessment roll in the prescribed manner.
It is intriguing as to why the Additional Collector after he passed orders on 12.3.84 (Annexure 3) did not proceed to comply with the aforementioned requirement of law. His duty was to comply with the provisions of section 23 of the Act.
The petitioner went on repeating his requests to determine the compensation, vide his applications contained in Annexure ''4'' and ''4/A'', but no answer has been furnished in this regard before us by the learned J.C. to learned G.A. This compels us to hold that the Additional Collector was wholly negligent in performing his duties and now a fault is sought to be found with the petitioner by him. Beyond this, we do not want to comment on the said State of affairs in regard to the non-disposal of the petitions as contained in Annexures 4 and 4/A.
For the reasons best known to respondents 1 to 4, they have not produced the records before us to-day. It is not the case of the respondents before us that while effecting the alleged delivery of possession in favour of respondents 5 to 22, the petitioner was dispossessed from his lands. This factual aspect apart, in view of the fact that the petitioner''s application u/s 22 of the Act was already allowed by the Additional Collector, which was never nullified, the settlement in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 22 were nullities.
For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. Accordingly, we allow this application, quash the orders as contained in Annexure 1 as well as the proceedings contained in annexure ''5'' and direct the Additional Collector, (respondent no. 3) to dispose of the petitioner''s application, as contained in Annexures ''4'' and ''4/A'' expeditiously in accordance with law and proceed to determine the compensation as envisaged u/s 23 of the Act.
However, we also clarify that if within the time fixed by the Additional Collector the petitioner fails to deposit the compensation amount, in that event it will be open for the State of Bihar to make fresh settlements in regard to these very lands in favour of respondents 5 to 22.
Let a writ of certiorari issue in terms of the orders aforesaid. Let a copy of this order be given to the Government Advocate.