CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3900 OF 1990 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … 1. Chhabila Ram, son of Late Rajdeo Ram, 2. Moti Lal Yadav, son of Late Nanhak Yadav, 3. Sheo Narayan Ram, son of Sri Bansh Ropan Ram, residents of village Anchha, PS Daudnagar, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. Heera Lal Ram, son of Sheo Chand Ram, village Anchha, Tola Chaman Bigha, PS Daudnagar, District Aurangabad – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Bihar Bhudan Yagna Committee, Kadam Kuan, Patna through its Chairman having Head office at Kadam Kuan, Patna. 3. The Collector, Aurangabad. 4. The Chairman, Bhudan Yagna Committee, Kadam Kuan, Patna. 5. Harish Chandra Singh, Secretary, Bihar Bhudan Yagna Committee, Kadam Kuan, Patna. 6. Ganesh Dutta Pandey, Officer Secretary, District Bhudan Yagna Office at Buniyadganj Manpur, District Gaya. 7. Udai Prasad Singh, son of Sri Rameshwar Singh, grand son of Dewaki Singh, village Anchha, PS Daudnagar, Dist. Aurangabad – Respondents. … For the petitioners – Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the State – Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, A.C. to G.P. XVI. For the Bhudan Yagna Committee – Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S. A. Khan,J The petitioners are aggrieved by order contained in Annexure 2 passed by the Secretary, Bhudan Yagna Committee, Patna. By the impugned order, the Daan Patra issued in favour of the petitioners with respect to Khesra Nos. 188, 595, 271 and 140 has been cancelled on the ground that these lands had not been donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee (hereinafter referred to as „the Committee‟) by the ex-landlord. The petitioners also challenge the consequential notices contained in Annexure 3 by which an office order has been issued informing the petitioners that the settlement 2 made by the Committee has been cancelled. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has made two fold submissions before this court. It is firstly contended that the order contained in annexure 2 has been passed without any notice to the petitioners and as such is in violation of principles of natural justice. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Secretary of the Committee does not have the power to cancel the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. 3. On perusal of the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the facts which has come on record, this court finds that in fact no notice was issued to the petitioner and that in itself is sufficient ground for quashing of Annexures 2 and 3. 4. The second question, however, needs to be clarified by this court. The grounds for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the petitioners is, that the ex-landlord in fact had not donated the lands which were the subject matter of the settlement, in favour of the Committee. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact that there was no donation has been adjudicated by this court in a second appeal. One of the settles, namely, Guru Charan Ram and others had filed a suit impleading the purchaser of the said lands from the ex- landlord and the heirs of the ex-landlord as defendants. The suit was filed for a declaration that the proforma defendant had no right to execute a sale deed with respect to the suit lands in favour of the defendants, as the father Performa defendant had already gifted the said land to the Committee. This court in S.A. No. 4 of 2007 while 3 considering the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court has come to a finding which is as follows : “After considering the arguments of the parties and the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that Danpatra dated 03.03.1954 (Ext.1) was executed by father of the proforma defendant in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Committee, whereafter notices dated 14.7.1958 (Ext. 2 series) were issued by the revenue officer to the said donor Sita Singh with regard to the publication which conclusively proved the donation of the suit land by Sita Singh, father of Ramadhar Singh, in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Committee and the said donation was confirmed by the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 13.8.1958 (Ext. 3/b) as there was no objection raised by any one against the same. In view of the said circumstances, the learned court of appeal below rightly came to the conclusion that the proforma defendant was left with no right, title or interest in the suit properties which they could transfer to the principal defendants.” 5. Once it has been decided conclusively by this court that the Daan Patra issued by the ex-landlord, dated 3.3.1954 was a valid document and the lands had been donated to the committee, it prima facie appears to be an error of law and fact that the Secretary of the Committee has held, that there was in fact no donation made of the lands in question by the ex-landlord. This factual aspect needs to be examined, if at all, by the competent authority. 6. The next question that arose in this case is, who would be the competent authority to examine such matters? Section 17A of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 gives the power to the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner to call for the records for the purpose of satisfying itself regarding the correctness, legality or propriety of any order made by any authority under this Act or the rule made thereunder. There is also a procedure by which the members of 4 the Committee may examine any record and send their suggestions to the revenue officer, if there is any violation of any part of the settlement. In this case the Secretary of the Committee could not have suo motu cancelled the settlement of the petitioners, rather, it would have been proper for him to send his recommendations to the revenue authorities or to Board of Revenue or the Commissioner for the purpose of examining the correctness or otherwise of the Daan Patra in question. Even otherwise as already held, cancellation without hearing the petitioners is not justified. 7. In the facts aforesaid this court finds that the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3 are bad, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The same are hereby quashed. 8. The Committee should examine the judgment and orders passed by this court in S.A. No. 4 of 2007 and on examining it pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the mean time the petitioners‟ possession over the lands in question will not be disturbed. 9. This writ petition is disposed of. Patna High Court, August 17, 2010, NAFR / haque. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)