9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Art. 32 devoid of merits; Writ of prohibition and certiorari sought; Interpretation of Bihar Land Reforms Act, s. 4(h); Dispute over property ownership; Validity of lease; State's power to annul transfer; Enquiry by Collector; Surrender of leasehold interest; Title of the petitioner; Constitutional validity of s. 4(h) not challenged; Allegations regarding property being raiyati land and building usage; Stay of proceedings; Jurisdiction of authorities under Bihar Land Reforms Act; Fundamental right to property; Dismissal of petition. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of prohibition and certiorari related to an enquiry under s. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The property in question, originally belonging to Ramgarh Raj, was leased to the Raja's brother in 1948. Subsequently, the estate vested in the State, leading to an enquiry by the Collector regarding the lease. The State alleged misuse of the property for rent collection, triggering a notice to set aside the lease. The leasehold interest changed hands through surrender and subsequent assignments, culminating in the petitioner's claim to the property. The Collector initially canceled the lease, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order on various grounds, including lack of opportunity to present objections. The State's decision to set aside the order led to a re-enquiry, during which the petitioner approached the Court seeking relief. The petition raised concerns about the property's classification as raiyati land and the usage of buildings, emphasizing residential rather than office purposes. The Court noted that the challenge was based on factual disputes being examined by the Collector, with the constitutional validity of s. 4(h) remaining unchallenged. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's right to property hinged on establishing title, currently under scrutiny in the ongoing enquiry. It highlighted that fundamental rights could only be claimed once title was confirmed, precluding premature grievances. Consequently, the Court found the petition lacking in merit for an Art. 32 intervention, dismissing it with costs. The decision underscored the necessity of resolving title disputes before asserting infringement of property rights, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and affirming the dismissal of the petition.
|
