K.B.N. Singh, S. Ali Ahmad, J. - (1.) In all these seven applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India a common question of law arises and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In all these writ applications the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, dated the 31st December, 1975, setting aside the orders of the Circle Officer, declaring the petitioners in the writ applications as privileged tenants and fixing or apportioning rent in their favour under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A prayer has also been made to quash the notices issued in pursuance of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, asking each of the petitioners to vacate the lands in dispute. The order of the Deputy Commissioner and the notice issued in pursuance thereof are Annexures 2 and 3, respectively, in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1439/76, 1444/76 and 1445/76, and Annexures 3 and 4, respectively, in C.W.J. Nos 1443/76, 1508/76, 1509/76 and 1510/76. It may be stated here that the main order of the Deputy Commissioner has been passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1975 -76, which is under challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 1444 of 1976 and marked as Annexure "2". The orders of the Deputy Commissioner under challenge in other writ applications are based on Annexure "2" of C.W.J.C. No. 1444 of 1976.
(2.) In September 1965 the Circle Officer acting as the Collector under the Act held the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1444, 1445 and 1510 of 1976 as privileged persons, namely, by order dated 1.9.65 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1444 and 1510 of 1976 and by order dated 2.9.1965 in C.W.J.C. No. 1445 of 1976, and apportioned rent with respect to the land on which they have constructed houses. In all these three cases the Jamabandi tenants, on whose land they have built their houses, raised no objection. By order dated 14.9.68 the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1439 of 1976 and by order dated 30.9.70 the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1509 of 1976 were held to be privileged tenants. The jamabandi raiyats accepted the position that they allowed these petitioners to construct houses on their land. By orders incase no. 15 of 1965 -66 and case no. 1 of 1969 -70 the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1443 and 1508 of 1976 were held to be privileged persons and Parch as dated 8.2.1966 and 28.3.1970, respectively, were granted in their favour. Shortly put, between 1965 and 1970 all the petitioners in all these writ petitions were declared to be privileged, tenants, proportionate rent was fixed in their favour and Parchas granted accordingly. The petitioners in all the writ applications have averred that they have been paying rent regularly up to date to the State of Bihar since grant of Parchas in respect of the disputed land.
(3.) In 1975 the Deputy Commissioner, Santal Parganas, issued notices on the petitioners to show cause why the orders passed in their favour declaring them to be privileged persons be not cancelled on the ground that they were not privileged persons and the Parchas granted to them were invalid. The petitioners filed show cause challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on various grounds, one of the grounds being that the Parcha having been granted by the Circle Officer acting as a Collector under the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has no power under the Act or the Rules to act as an appellate authority or reviewing authority and to cancel it. It was also asserted that the landlords of the holding not having filed any application for cancellation of the order of the Circle Officer or for eviction of the petitioners from the homestead, where the petitioners are living and paying rent to the State of Bihar, the orders became final under Sec. 18 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 31.12.75 overruling the objections of the petitioners set aside the orders of the Circle Officer acting as Collector under the Act declaring the petitioners as privileged tenants as already stated. Thereafter notices have been issued against the petitioners to vacate the land by a particular date mentioned in the notice. After these writ petitions were admitted, the operation of those orders and the notices has been stayed by this Court.;