IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1552 of 2006 Abdul Waheed son of Haji Miayaan, resident of Main Road, Begusarai, P.S. -Town Thana Begusarai, District Begusarai……………………………………………….…Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Begusarai. 3. Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai Anchal, Begusarai………Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate. For the respondents : AC. to AAG-1. ---------------------------------- 02/ 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 14.03.2005 by which Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Begusarai initiated Sub-Divisional Certificate Case No.05 of 2004-05 against the petitioner on the requisition made by Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai for recovery of the commercial rent of Rs.1,44,375.00 under section 23 (4) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 as well as notice dated 14.03.2005 issued by the Certificate Officer under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and also for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the said notice dated 14.03.2005 (Annexure-2). 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 contesting the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the reliefs claimed - 2 - and grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. After considering the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the requisition of Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai was for recovery of commercial rent fixed by the authorities as per the market value of the land under the provision of section 23 (4) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 as amended in 1996. The vires of the said provision were challenged in a number of cases and were finally decided by a Division Bench of this court in case of Amar Singh and others vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 225 and the said provision of section 23 (4) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and the Rules regarding re-determination of rent on the market value was declared void and inoperative. In the last paragraph of the said judgment it was specifically held that the benefit of the said judgment would be available only in the cases which were pending at the time of passing of the said judgment in the year 2007. This writ petition having been pending since 2006, the said case law covers this matter also. 5. From the certificate singed by the Certificate Officer on receipt of the requisition from the Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai it transpires that there is no mention in the said certificate that the demand made was recoverable and that its recovery was not barred by any law. It has already been held by a Division Bench of this court in case of Jai Prakash Dwivedi vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 498 that putting signature on the - 3 - certificate by the Certificate Officer is not an empty formality but goes to the root of the matter as the Certificate Officer is expected to apply his mind and only then sign the certificate which should expressly show that the Certificate Officer was satisfied about the recoverability of the public demand and hence in absence of any such statement in the certificate in question, it cannot be legally deemed to be a certificate in the eye of law. 6. On the above two grounds, the impugned certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Begusarai as well as the proceeding of Sub-Divisional Certificate Case No.05 of 2004-05 against the petitioner appears to be ab-initio illegal and void and are accordingly quashed. However, the authorities will be at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding in accordance with law, if the amount claimed by them still remains legally recoverable. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is allowed. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)