Patna High Court
Mandal Baski vs The State Of Bihar on 9 January, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19619 of 2024
======================================================
Mandal Baski Son of late Badro Baski @ Badro Baski resident of Ward
No.15, Singhia Sultanpur, Chakla, P.O.- Chaklaghat, district- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Kishanganj.
2. The Collector Cum District Magistrate (D.M.), Kishanganj
3. The Additional Collector, Kishanganj.
4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Kishanganj
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Kishanganj.
6. The Anchal Adhikari (C.O.), Kishanganj Anchal, district- Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, A.C. to S.C-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2025
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for
the following relief(s):-
1. That this is an application for
issuance of an appropriate writ/
writ(s) or order/order(s) and/ or
direction for the following
relief/reliefs.
A. To set aside the order dated
08.12.2020
passed by the Collector,
Kishanganj in Bandobasti Parcha
Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19
whereby and whereunder the Parcha
issued under the Land Settlement Case
No. 91/1966-67 in the name of Badri
Baski (the father of the petitioner) has
been cancelled illegally without any
notice and against dead person (Badri
Baski).
Patna High Court CWJC No.19619 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
B. That the petitioner's possession
over the land in question (5 Acres 12
decimals, the settled land) be not
disturbed till disposal of the present
application.
C. To pass such other order/orders or
direction as may deem fit and proper
to secure the ends of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land
in question mentioned in para 4 which is Plot No. 1515 under
Khata No. 94, Area-5.64 acres situated within Mauza-Khagda
under Thana No. 57, ward No. 6 was settled in the name of
father of the petitioner in the year 1966-67. It has been
submitted that father of the petitioner died on 15.12.1996 as is
evident from the Death Certificate annexed as Annexure-P/2 and
in the Bandobasti Parcha Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19
filed by State against the petitioner's father and other, notice has
been issued to father of the petitioner who has already died. In
this way, Notice is merely a formality as father of the petitioner
has died earlier and petitioner has not been heard. Thereby,
petitioner has been deprived of his right of hearing. In this way,
the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj
in Bandobasti Parcha Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19 is
liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the State submits that
petitioner is not a party as his father is party and other person to
Patna High Court CWJC No.19619 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
whom he has sold the land in question. He has also admitted
that though notice has been served but notice has not been given
to the petitioner because he is not a party to the said proceeding.
4. The moot question which has been raised by
counsel of the petitioner is that petitioner has not been heard. It
is clarified from the title of the proceeding that petitioner is not
a party and his father has already died and right of hearing must
not be an empty formality. If any order has been passed against
any person by the which the person is aggrieved, he must be
heard.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool
Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 in para 15, held as under:-
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the High Court, having regard to the facts
of the case, has a discretion to entertain or
not to entertain a writ petition. But the
High Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions one of which is that if an
effective and efficacious remedy is
available, the High Court would not
normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the
alternative remedy has been consistently
held by this Court not to operate as a bar
in at least three contingencies, namely,
where petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental
Rights or where there has been violation of
the principle of natural justice or where the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19619 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments
has held that principle of natural justice is equally applicable in
quasi-judicial function as well as administrative function to
arrive at just decision and it is difficult to see as to why it should
be applicable only to quasi-judicial inquiry not to administrative
inquiry and it has been settled law that it must logically apply to
both. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav vs.
J.M.A. Industries Ltd. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259 observed
at para-12 which reads as under:-
"12. Therefore, fair play in action
requires that the procedure adopted must
be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of
exercise of the power and its impact on the
rights of the person affected would be in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice."
7. The said principle has been recently reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and
Others vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 342 in which it has been observed as follows:-
"The Principles of natural justice
are not mere legal formalities. They
constitute substantive obligations that
Patna High Court CWJC No.19619 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
need to be followed by decision-making
and adjudicating authorities. The
principles of natural justice act as a
guarantee against arbitrary action, both in
terms of procedure and substance, by
judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative
authorities."
8. In the present case, when action of respondent
authority is decided upon the touchstone of principles of natural
justice as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforementioned cases (cited supra), it is crystal clear that action
of respondent authority is arbitrary as proper opportunity has
not been given to the petitioner. When the concerned authority
passed the order without providing the opportunity to the
aggrieved person, on that score the order passed by the
concerned authority is against the spirit of law, violating the
principles of natural justice as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in catena of judgments.
9. In the light of the discussions made above, the order
dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj in
Bandobasti Parcha Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19 is not
sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby set-aside.
The matter is remanded back to the concerned authority for
hearing the matter afresh after serving the notice to the parties
Patna High Court CWJC No.19619 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
and pass fresh order within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt/production of copy of this order in accordance with
law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.01.2025
Transmission Date NA
