IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18 of 1994 ===================================================== 1. Dharam Deo Kuwar, S/o Late Siya Saran Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bachhwara, District-Begusarai. 2. Shatrughan Kuwar, S/o Late Siya Saran Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 3. Hare Ram Kuwar, S/o Kapil Deo Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 4. Rajendra Kuwar, S/o Ramashray Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 5. Ramashray Kuwar, S/o Ayodhya Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 6. Ram Narain Kuwar, S/o Late Ayodhya Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 7. Ram Sajan Kuwar, S/o late Ayodhya Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 8. Ram Chandra Kuwar, S/o Late Ayodha Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 9. Yashoda Nand Thakur, S/o Late Gaya Nand Thakur, R/o Village- Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 10. Asha Devi, W/o Pabitra Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 11. Tripat Choudhary, S/o Ram Prasad Choudhary, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 12. Shiv Shankear Kuwar, S/o Adalat Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 13. Ram Prit Kuwar, S/o Ram Kishun Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 14. Gaya Prasad Kuwar, S/o Sarjug Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 15. Shiv Shankar Kuwar, S/o Dhanik Lal Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai 16. Deo Nath Kuwar, S/o Baya Lal Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 17. Ram Nand Thakur, S/o Laddu Lal Kuwar, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.- Bathwara, District-Begusarai. Patna High Court CWJC No.55 of 1994 27-04-2011 2 18. Gemgu Choudhary, S/o Harbansh Choudhary, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. 19. Ramashray Choudhary, S/o Ram Rup Choudhary, R/o Village-Jhamatia, P.S.-Bathwara, District-Begusarai. ……… Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Begusarai, 4. The Circle officer, Bachchawara, District – Begusarai. .... .... Respondents ===================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 55 of 1994 ====================================================== 1. Lakshmi Roy, son of Shri Balo Roy, 2. Mahendra Roy, son of late Saryug Roy, 3. Tarani Roy, son of late Saryug Roy, 4. Shridhar Roy, son of Shri Balo Roy, 5. Ram Nandan Roy, son of Shri Balo Roy, 6. Ramji Roy, son of Shri Balo Roy, 7. Bindeshwari Roy, son of Shri Balo Roy, 8. Nand Kumar Roy, son of late Ram Jatan Roy, 9. Chamaru Roy, son of late Raj Kishore Roy, All residents of Village – Jhamatiya, P.S. Bachchawara, Dist. – Begusarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Begusarai, 4. The Circle officer, Bachchawara, District – Begusarai. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: (In both cases) For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee, Advocate. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, G.P. 3. ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.55 of 1994 27-04-2011 3 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE The 27th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) These two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise identical issue. The petitions are, therefore, decided by this common order. The petitioners in both these writ petitions claim that they are in possession of the disputed parcels of land of Village Jhamariya, District – Begusarai; particulars of which are mentioned in paragraph 4 of each petition. According to the petitioners, the disputed parcels of land were settled in favour of their ancestors by the then landlords. The petitioners inherited the said parcels of land from their ancestors. Thus, the disputed parcels of land are in their possession without any interference for more than 40 years. Over a period of time the said parcels of land were submerged under the river water and were later resumed. The petitioners, therefore, filed applications for fixation of rent. After appropriate enquiry, by the orders made by the Circle Officer on 10th March 1986 in Land Settlement Case no. 36/85-86, Rent Fixation Case Nos. 20/85-86, 21/85-86, 25/85-86, 30/85-86 & 34/85-86 (Annexure 1 & 1 series to the writ petitions), the rent of the disputed parcels of land was fixed. Since then the petitioners are in possession of the said lands without interference. Nevertheless, the District Magistrate by impugned order dated 29th October 1993 unilaterally set aside the orders of the Circle Officer without notice to the writ petitioners. In compliance with the order of the District Magistrate the Circle Officer has made consequential orders Patna High Court CWJC No.55 of 1994 27-04-2011 4 on 17th January 1994 (Annexure 4 to each petition). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may be noted that the State Government has not filed counter affidavit to deny the averments/allegations made in the writ petitions. It may also be noted that though the petitioners claim the settlement made in favour of their predecessors and actual possession for several decades, the said statements are not supported by documentary evidence. On perusal of documents on record, it is apparent that the District Magistrate made the impugned order dated 29th October 1993 on the premise that the Circle Officer had no power or authority to make the order of settlement of lands or of fixing the rent of the lands Be that as it may, it is indisputable that right or wrong, with or without the authority, the Circle Officer did make orders in favour of the petitioners. Before the said orders were cancelled by the District Magistrate; may be on the ground of want of authority or power of the Circle Officer, the principles of fair play and natural justice required the District Collector to give opportunity to the petitioners to show cause and of personal hearing, if required. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioners were given opportunity to show cause or of hearing; nor the complaint made by the petitioners of violation of principle of natural justice has been denied by the respondents. In the above circumstances, the petitions deserve to be allowed. The impugned orders need to be set aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice alone. For the aforesaid reason, both the petitions are allowed. Patna High Court CWJC No.55 of 1994 27-04-2011 5 The impugned order dated 29th October 1993 made by the District Magistrate, Begusarai, the consequential orders dated 12th November 1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petitions) and the orders dated 17th January 1994 made by the Circle Officer, Begusarai (Annexure-4 to the petitions) are quashed and set aside. The parties will bear their own cost. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the legality or otherwise of the settlement or the orders of fixation of rent made in favour of the writ petitioners. Patna High Court. The 27th April 2011. NAFR/ Dilip. ( R.M. Doshit, CJ )