CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.389 OF 1993 Ravindra Singh, son of late Hira Singh, resident of village, Baghlatti, P.S. Mohanpur, District – Gaya. ----------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector-cum-Superintendent of Survey, Gaya 3. The Charge Officer, Municipal Survey, Gaya 4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Gaya 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Gaya 6. a. Smt. Umeshwari Kuar, widow of Raghubansh Mani Prasad Narain Singh 6. b. Sita Ram Prasad Narain singh, 6. c. Bharat Prasad Narain Singh Both Sons of late Raghubansh Mani Prasad Narain Singh. 6. d. Smt. Raj Laxmi D/o – late Raghubansh Mani Prasad Narain Singh, All residing in Amawan House Dakbunglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District – Patna. ------------- Respondents. -------------- For The Petitioner : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For The Respondent : Rajesh Kumar, J.C. to A.A.G. 6. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***************** A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner the court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 03.12.1991, passed by the Collector-cum Survey Superintendent, Gaya, cannot be sustained, for the reason that the jurisdiction in him was invoked on a limited issue of transfer of the case. Instead of exercising that - 2 - authority he took cognizance of the merits of the matter and passed the order. The dispute was going on between the present petitioner as well as respondent no.6, both of whom were claiming their right, title and interest and wanted their names to be recorded in the Survey Record. Initially, the matter was before the Assistant Settlement Officer, but the matter could not be decided for a long time by him. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Charge Officer (respondent no.3) for adjudication but respondent no. 6, since deceased, filed a petition on 13.02.1989, before the Collector, Gaya, for transfer of the case. On examination of the matter it emerged that a final order had already been passed by the Charge Officer (respondent no.3) on 07.02.1989. To that extent, therefore, petition filed for transfer of the case had become infructuous and meaningless. Instead of allowing the aggrieved party to challenge the order dated 07.02.1989, passed by the Charge Officer, by way of appeal. The Collector, Gaya by suo motu taking notice of the matter, decided the matter on merits. The above position seems to be borne out from perusal of the record specially the impugned order contained in Annexure – 1 and order dated 07.02.1989 contained in Annexure -2 passed by the Charge Officer, Gaya. With the above factual position, Collector, Gaya acting as a Survey Superintendent ought to have rejected the petition for transfer and allowed the parties to take recourse under law against the order dated 07.02.1989 contained in Annexure – 2. - 3 - Since recourse under law by way of an appeal against Annexure – 2 was not taken by the respondent no.6, the petitioner is correct in urging that the Collector has exercised power and jurisdiction for a collateral reason. From the records of the case it transpires that respondent no.6 died and thereafter his legal heirs were brought on record, but many effort made over the period of time in getting notices served upon them has not succeeded as of today. Therefore, there is no representation on their behalf. However for the reasons indicated above the impugned order dated 03.12.1991 contained in Annexure – 1 is set aside, giving opportunity to the legal heirs of respondent no.6 to take appropriate steps against order dated 07.02.1989, if law so permits. The writ application of the petitioner is allowed and Annexure – 1 dated 03.12.1991 is quashed with a liberty to the legal heirs of respondent no.6 as above. Patna High Court The 2nd December, 2008 NAFR/AFR, Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)