2004 (6) TMI 638 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain a second revision under the Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973.
2. Validity of the initial order passed by the Circle Officer.
3. Procedural compliance under the Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain a second revision under the Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973:

The petitioner contended that the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, had no jurisdiction to entertain a second revision under the Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973, as Section 17, which allowed such revisions, was deleted by the legislature. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner bypassed this curtailment by invoking his general power of superintendence under Section 28 of the Act. The court noted that the proceedings were initiated after the deletion of Section 17, making the second revision non-maintainable. However, the court also observed that the initiation of the proceedings was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure, thereby justifying the Commissioner's intervention.

2. Validity of the initial order passed by the Circle Officer:

The court scrutinized the initial order passed by the Circle Officer on 2.3.1996, which directed the issuance of rent receipts to the petitioner. The court found that the Circle Officer did not follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Sections 12 and 14 of the Act. Specifically, the Circle Officer did not issue a general notice or provide an opportunity for objections, nor did he conduct a proper inquiry. The court concluded that the Circle Officer's order was illegal and without jurisdiction, as it was not based on a valid application or in the prescribed form.

3. Procedural compliance under the Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973:

The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance under the Act. It noted that the application filed by the petitioner on 19.1.1996, which initiated the proceedings, was not in the prescribed form and did not follow the statutory requirements. The court highlighted that the statutory functionaries must act within the confines of the statute, and any deviation from the prescribed procedure renders the action ultra vires. The court held that the original order of the Circle Officer, as well as the subsequent appellate and revisional orders upholding it, were illegal due to non-compliance with statutory provisions.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the order of the Commissioner, which set aside the orders of the Circle Officer and the Additional Collector. The court remanded the matter to the Circle Officer to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, provided the petitioner files an appropriate application in the prescribed manner. The court directed that the Circle Officer and other revenue authorities await the verdict of the pending LPA before proceeding further. The writ petition was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.