Sharif Mian and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3035 of 1989
Petitioner: Sharif Mian and Others
Respondent: State of Bihar and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3035 of 1989
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMAD & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 1999
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1959
Sections 8, 6 – Power of Commissioner – Revision against order of collector being appellate authority – Maintainability. Held that in view of Sk. Gazar’s case (1986 (34) BLJR 45), Commission has no revisional powers to interfere with orders of Collector. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1959
Sections 8, 6 – Power of Commissioner – Revision against order of collector being appellate authority – Maintainability. Held that in view of Sk. Gazar’s case (1986 (34) BLJR 45), Commission has no revisional powers to interfere with orders of Collector. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Sk. Gajar v. State of Bihar (1986) 34 BLJR 45
2. Baldeo Prasad Sah v. Commr. of Bhagalpur Division 1960 BLJR 19.
2. Baldeo Prasad Sah v. Commr. of Bhagalpur Division 1960 BLJR 19.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The case has a chequered litigative history but we pick up the thread from 1973 when the present appellants before us initiated a case for mutation of their names which was rejected by the Anchal Adhikari, Bhabhua. Appeal filed against the aforesaid orders of the Anchal Adhikari was dismissed by the Deputy Commis-sioner, Land Reforms on 7-5-1976. Thereafter, the appellants filed appeal before the Collector, Rohtak who dismissed the appeal on 22-6-1977. Against that order a revision was filed before the Commissioner, who by his order dated 4-2-1980, allowed the revision and directed that an enquiry be made to ascertain if the land in question was in actual physical possession of the appellants. This order was challenged in the High Court, which by its judgment and order dated 11-9-1985 allowed the writ petition and held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision filed by the appellants. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
2. Relying upon Section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rule 8 framed thereunder, the High Court held that the Commis-sioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the order of the Collector. For that purpose, the High Court relied upon an earlier decision of its own in Baldeo Prasad Sah v. Commr. of Bhagalpur Division 1960 BLJR 19. This decision has since been followed by that High Court in another case, namely, Sk. Gajar v. State of Bihar (1986) 34 BLJR 45 in which the deci-sion was rendered by Mr. Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma (as his Lordship then was) and it was held that:
“The proceedings under Section 6 of the Act are judicial in nature in which rival claims of the litigating parties are deter-mined and unless the law vested in the Commissioner, authority to interfere with the orders passed in the proceedings, the power in this regard cannot be assumed merely for the reason that the Collector is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner. …. the Commissioner has no jurisdiction either revisionary or otherwise to interfere with the order passed in appeal under Section 8 of the Act (by the Collector).”
3. This being the settled law, we are of the view that the High Court was right in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
4. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The case has a chequered litigative history but we pick up the thread from 1973 when the present appellants before us initiated a case for mutation of their names which was rejected by the Anchal Adhikari, Bhabhua. Appeal filed against the aforesaid orders of the Anchal Adhikari was dismissed by the Deputy Commis-sioner, Land Reforms on 7-5-1976. Thereafter, the appellants filed appeal before the Collector, Rohtak who dismissed the appeal on 22-6-1977. Against that order a revision was filed before the Commissioner, who by his order dated 4-2-1980, allowed the revision and directed that an enquiry be made to ascertain if the land in question was in actual physical possession of the appellants. This order was challenged in the High Court, which by its judgment and order dated 11-9-1985 allowed the writ petition and held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision filed by the appellants. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
2. Relying upon Section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rule 8 framed thereunder, the High Court held that the Commis-sioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the order of the Collector. For that purpose, the High Court relied upon an earlier decision of its own in Baldeo Prasad Sah v. Commr. of Bhagalpur Division 1960 BLJR 19. This decision has since been followed by that High Court in another case, namely, Sk. Gajar v. State of Bihar (1986) 34 BLJR 45 in which the deci-sion was rendered by Mr. Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma (as his Lordship then was) and it was held that:
“The proceedings under Section 6 of the Act are judicial in nature in which rival claims of the litigating parties are deter-mined and unless the law vested in the Commissioner, authority to interfere with the orders passed in the proceedings, the power in this regard cannot be assumed merely for the reason that the Collector is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner. …. the Commissioner has no jurisdiction either revisionary or otherwise to interfere with the order passed in appeal under Section 8 of the Act (by the Collector).”
3. This being the settled law, we are of the view that the High Court was right in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
4. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
