- (1.) This writ application was filed on 5.6.2000. This Court by order dated 26.6.2000 allowed four weeks time to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. Again the matter was listed on 20.11.2001 and on that day, by way of last indulgence, ten days more time was allowed to the State but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. Hence this Court has no option but to dispose of this writ application on the basis of averments made therein.
(2.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dt. 11.4.2000, passed by the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Misc. Review Appeal No. 4/1997 whereby he has decided to review the order passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad in BPLE Appeal No. 59/1996. It appears that on the basis of report submitted by the Circle Officer a proceeding under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (In short the Act) was initiated against the petitioner alleging that he got 14 decimals of land of plot No. 806 under Khata No. 136 of Mouza Hirapur in the District of Dhanbad. In the said proceeding, on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner appeared before the Circle Officer and filed a show cause denying the allegation of encroachment of any part of the land. The L.R.D.C., after hearing both the parties, dropped the proceeding against the petitioner by order dated 10.9.1996 holding that the allegation of encroachment was not established. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent -State preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. Dhanbad which was registered as BPLE Appeal No. 59/1996, The Additional Collector, after considering the entire evidence produced before him, affirmed the order passed by L.R.D.C. and dismissed the appeal in terms of order dt. 8.9.1997. Against the appellate order the respondent -State filed a Mic. Review Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad which was registered as Misc. Review Appeal Case No. 4/1997. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and opposed the maintainability of the Review Application or appeal before him against the order passed by the Additional Collector as an appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner, however passed the impugned order holding that he will review the order of the Additional Collector.
(3.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as being illegal and wholly without Jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the appellate power having been exercised by the Additional Collector in an appeal filed by the respondent - State, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction either to entertain a second appeal or to entertain the said appeal by way of review. I find force in the submission of the leaned counsel.;