IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3164 of 2009 Budhi Ram Singh Yadav @ Bidhi Ram Singh, son of late Sri Parsuram Singh, resident of village Jaso, P.S. Buxar (Industry), District Buxar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Buxar, District Buxar 3. Additional District Magistrate, Buxar, District Buxar 4. Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Buxar, District Buxar 5. Anchaladhikari/ Circle Officer/ Block Office, Naibazar, District Buxar 6. Buxar Matasyajiwi Sahyog Samittee, District Buxar 7. District Fishery Officer cum Executive Officer, Buxar, District Buxar … Respondents ----------- 4. 6.7.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Despite service of notice no one has appeared on behalf of respondent no.6. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) To quash the order dated 11.7.2005 (Annexure 5) whereby respondent no.5 Anchaladhikari, Buxar has review his earlier order dated 9.7.2005 passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 01/2005-06 in compliance of order dated 23.6.2005 passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector relating to rent fixation in which he has no power and as such, the same is void ab- initio and also consequent order passed by him is also void, and also 2 (ii) Be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to 4 to issue and continue granting of Rent receipt to the petitioner keeping in view the judgment of Sub Judge III, Buxar (Annexures 1 and 1A) and also order dated 23.6.2005 passed by learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Buxar. (iii) Further be pleased to stay the impugned order and be pleased to restrain the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession over the land in question in any manner. (iv) To grant heavy cost and compensation to the respondents for dragging the petitioner in false litigation.” Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that when Rent Fixation Case No. 01/2005-06 was finally allowed in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 9.7.2005, the same could not have been reviewed and recalled as has been done by the impugned order dated 11.7.2005, inasmuch as the said authority the Anchal Adhikari, Buxar has been vested with no power of review. He has also submitted that the petitioner was not given any notice and/or 3 opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. A great emphasis in fact has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the operative portion of the judgment and decree of the title suit filed by the ancestors of the petitioner dated 17.8.1989 and 26.8.1989, as contained in Annexures 1 and 1A, wherein the title of the petitioner was affirmed and the suit was decreed by also restraining defendant no.1, State of Bihar through the Collector of Bhojpur District, by a permanent injunction from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.7, the District Fishery Officer cum Executive Officer, Buxar, who has sought to explain that the said judgment and decree of the civil court was never acted upon by the petitioner himself, inasmuch as one of the co-sharer, namely, Laxmikant Yadav had accepted the title and possession of the State by getting annual lease from the State. It has, therefore, been sought to be explained that when the order passed by the 4 authority cancelling the earlier rent fixation order in favour of the petitioner was found to be incorrect the same was accordingly recalled. The District Fishery Officer has reiterated that the pond in question belongs to the State of Bihar and there are unimpeachable evidence to show that the same had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Counsel for respondent no.7, however, has frankly conceded that before passing of the impugned order on 11.7.2005 no notice was given to the petitioner or any of the applicants in whose favour the rent fixation case was decided two days earlier on 9.7.2005. He has also not been able to show any authority vested in the Anchal Adhikari to review his own order and has merely suggested that the impugned order in fact was passed at the behest of the D.C.L.R. who in fact had also approved such order passed by the Circle Officer. In the considered opinion of this Court the sole aspect which would go to the root of the matter is jurisdiction of Revenue Officer. The Circle Officer can 5 definitely pass an order for fixation of rent but he has been vested with no power and has no authority to review his own order. In the present case on 9.7.2005 he had passed the order fixing rent on an application filed by the petitioner. The rent Fixation Case No. 01/2005-06, therefore, was finally disposed of on 9.7.2005 by the Circle Officer, Buxar and he had become functus officio. If thereafter any person was aggrieved by such an order he had definitely a right to move in appeal and the appellate authority could have for his own reasons rescinded or modified the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari but in no view of the matter the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer) could have reviewed his own order. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent no.7 that such order in fact has been passed by the appellate authority, the D.C.L.R., has to be noted for its being rejected, inasmuch as from the order dated 11.7.2005 it is manifest that the Circle Officer himself in course of his local inspection after passing the order on 9.7.2005 in view of some information 6 gathered by him and/or protest made by the public had recommended for cancellation of the earlier order passed on 9.7.2005 in Rent Fixation Case No. 01/2005-06. Such action of the Circle Officer also cannot stand the test of reasonableness, inasmuch as an order vesting certain rights and privileges in favour of the petitioner and other applicants of Rent Fixation Case No. 01/2005-06 had been passed on 9.7.2005 and if such order even on the ground of fraud was sought to be reversed the petitioner was required to be given notice and/or heard. Admittedly no such notice and/or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and other applicants of rent fixation case. Thus, the impugned order dated 11.7.2005 is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court, however, would not like to make any comment on the validity/ correctness of the judgment and decree of the civil court in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as counsel for respondent no.7 has submitted that a civil suit has been filed in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of 7 Civil Procedure for enforcing the right of the public as against the pond in question which had allegedly vested in the State of Bihar. This Court in fact even otherwise would not like to go into the issue of title of the land/ pond, inasmuch as the said judgment and decree of the civil court is ex-parte and the conduct of one of the agnates of the petitioner in getting annual settlement year after year of that very land and pond on which they had already got a decree of Civil Court in their favour would also require some sort of explanation from the petitioner before claiming perfection of his right on the basis of such judgment and decree of the civil court. Considering all these aspects this Court would set aside the impugned order dated 11.7.2005 passed by the Circle Officer and also affirmed by the D.C.L.R. This application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/