CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10680 OF 1992 ----- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- SHRI LAKCHMI NARAIN SANSKRIT VIDYALAYA, GHARWASHDIH, P.S. KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS …. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BUXAR. 3. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 4. RAMDEO HARIJAN SON OF JAI NANDAN HARIJAN OF VILLAGE DHARAMPURA,P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR.--Respondents ----- For The Petitioner : M/S K.N. CHOUBEY, SR. ADVOCATE OM PRAKASH UPADHAYAY MITHILESH KUMAR UPADHYAY, ADVOCATES For Respondent NO. 4: MR. MANISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ----- Navin Sinha & Kishore K. Mandal, J.J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for Respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner claims that the lands measuring 22.59 acres were donated in the year 1949 by one Mahanth Lachmi Prapannacharya for the School. In a land ceiling proceeding initiated in the year 1973 against the Chela of the aforesaid Mahanth when despite his objection under Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as „the Act‟) that the lands donated to the School should not be clubbed with his lands was not accepted, a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 2152 of 1979 by its order dated 15.2.1980 at paragraph 3 held as follows: “3………….It also appears from the order contained in Annexure-9 that an area of 22.59 acres was gifted to a Sanskrit School. We direct that this area shall be excluded from the purview of the landlord‟s lands as he had gifted this land to a Sanskrit School………..” The final order in the land ceiling case dated 16.7.1981 also noticed that the area of 22.59 acres had been excluded by this Court and then assessed the land holdings of the Mahanth. 3. A Bataidari case was filed by Respondent no. 4 registered as Case No. 35 of 1975-76 in the Court of the D.C.L.R., Buxar. A statutory 2 Board was directed to be constituted for the lands in question which included the lands claimed by the School in pursuance of a donation. The petitioner then represented before the D.C.L.R., who by his order dated 24.8.1992 excluded 22.59 acres of lands from the Bataidari proceedings. Respondent no. 4 preferred an application before the D.C.L.R. against the said order. The D.C.L.R. on 21.9.1992 held that CWJC No. 2152 of 1979 in which lands were directed to be excluded was not concerned with a Bataidari dispute but with a land ceiling proceeding. He further held that the petitioner was also not a party in CWJC No. 2026 of 1982 and that the petitioner could not be made a party in the Bataidari case in pursuance of the orders of the High Court. He therefore held that the earlier order dated 24.8.1992 was not a final order. The proceedings have thus been directed to be continued with regard to the lands in question also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously contended that the School was in possession of the lands much prior to the initiation of the Bataidari case in 1975-76. Respondent no. 4 was well aware of this fact and deliberately filed the case against the Chela of the Mahanth and not against the petitioner. The proceeding itself was not maintainable against a wrong person in so far as this area of 22.59 acres is concerned. Additionally, a Division Bench of this Court held that these lands had to be excluded from the purview of the land ceiling proceedings against the Mahanth. Reading together, this area of 22.59 acres of lands has to be excluded, not being the lands of the Mahanth, from the subject matter of the Bataidari proceeding. In pursuance thereof the Chakbandi authority by order dated 10.9.1986 made necessary entries in the Chak register with regard to the lands in question in so far as the petitioner is concerned and mutation is also stated to have been done in the name of the petitioner. It was, therefore, contended that the D.C.L.R. had rightly dropped the proceedings against the petitioner under the Bataidari Act with regard to the specified lands. He has no powers of review and, therefore, the subsequent order dated 21.9.1992 reviewing his 3 own earlier order dropping the proceeding against the School is not sustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the State, in our view, rightly contended that an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by the D.C.L.R. was quasi judicial without hearing the Bataidars and to whose prejudice the order shall operate was a nullity like a still born child and if it was a nullity the issue of review does not arise. Only the illegality has been cured. Setting aside the latter shall revive an order passed in violation of natural justice, to the prejudice of another. 6. We find force in this contention as it is settled law that the act of the Court can prejudice none. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent no. 4 is unable to throw any light on the controversy. No counter affidavit has been filed by him also 8. While we prima facie find strength in the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, and if it be the correct position that the Division Bench order of this Court in CWJC No. 2192 of 1979 has not been interfered with by any subsequent Court of law, in totality of the matter the Batadiari proceeding against the petitioner may not be sustainable when the issue of the order dated 24.8.1992 dropping the proceeding and reviewing the same on 21.9.1992 by the D.C.L.R. may not have any relevance. 9. We are diffident to give any clear cut positive findings because of the fact that the order of the D.C.L.R. dated 21.9.1992 refers to another proceeding of CWJC No. 2026 of 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner produces before us the original hand written certified copy of the order also and which explicitly and clearly records the number of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the parties are unable to throw any light on what the writ petition may have been or what orders may have been passed therein or who were the parties. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State also. 4 10. The claim relates to share cropping. The segment of the society from which the share-cropper will come cannot be lost sight of by us at this stage. His resources shall naturally be limited if he is fighting for his rights as a share-cropper of a certain area of lands. It may not be possible for him to adequately contest this litigation before this Court for financial and social reasons. 11. In the entirety of the matter, we are satisfied that it is not possible for us in the present proceeding to hold that Bataidari proceedings are not maintainable in respect of these 22.59 acres of land against the Chela of the Mahanth. This finding is arrived at not on merits but for reasons of absence of necessary foundational facts. But, these are the issues to be appropriately kept in mind by the D.C.L.R. while deciding Bataidari case and who shall be obliged to deal with the present issues in detail disclosing full reasons for the conclusion that he may arrive at in favour of Bataidars or the petitioner, as the case may be. 12. Since the matter has remained pending before this Court for a considerable time, We direct the parties to appear forthwith before the D.C.L.R., who shall proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law. 13. Nothing in this order shall be construed as affirmation of the order dated 21.9.1992, which shall obviously merge with the fresh decision to be made by the D.C.L.R. in the entire conspectus of the matter as discussed above. 14. The writ petition stands disposed with directions. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT The 27th November, 2009 AKS/12 (NAFR)