JUDGEMENT
S.K.Katriar, J. -
(1.)Heard Mr. V. Nath for the petitioner, Mr. Abbas Raider, JC to GP II for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. O.P. Agrawal for respondent No. 3 (Shailendra Singh). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.2001 (Annexure 2), passed by the learned Collector of the District of Begusarai in Revenue Case No. 68/97 Ram Lagan Singh v. Narayan Sah, in purported exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.)According to the writ petition, the petitioner is a 'privileged tenant' in terms of Section 2(J) of the Act and has his homestead on the land in question. He was threatened with ejectment and, therefore, filed an application under Section 5 of the Act which was on contest allowed by order dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure 1), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai, in Basgit Parcha Case No. 6026/3 of 96-97/97-98, whereby the requisite declaration under the Act, was granted in favour of the petitioner, and Basgit Parcha was directed to be issued to him. Respondent No. 3 preferred an application under Section 21 of the Act which has been allowed by the impugned order, whereby the said order dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure 1) has been set aside, and the Basgit Parcha directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not a 'privileged tenant' within the meaning Section 2(j) of the Act who is owner land in his own right.
(3.)While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the scope and content of Section 21 of the Act, it was not open to the learned Collector of the district to decide the matter on merits and grant full relief to one or the other party, In his submission, if the learned Collector of the district was convinced of the incorrectness of the impugned order, the only course open to him was to remit the matter back to the learned first authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. He relies on the parallel provisions of Section 45B of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, and discussed in a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (2) BLJ 562 Rupchand Baid v. State of Bihar. He also draws support reference from the provisions of Section 35 the Consolidation Act which, in his submission, is differently worded as a result of which the scope, content and revisional power under Section 35 of the Act are quite different. He lastly submits that respondent No. 3 has resorted to parallel proceedings by preferring the present writ petition as well as the civil suit.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.