M .Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.9.1994 passed by the Addl. Collector, Palamau and the order dated 19.6.95 passed by the Commissioner, Palamau, whereby the demand which was opened in the name of the petitioner in 1979 has been cancelled at the instance of the respondents. The petitioner's case, inter alia, is that the proprietary interest to the extent of 5 annas and odd of village -Itehey, and 11 Pai and odd of village Amwa, P.S. Lesliganj, District -Palamau were auction sold in Execution of Certificate Case No. 118 of 193940 and the same was purchased by the Secretary, Co -Operative Bank, Daltonganj and a Sale Certificate dated 24.3.1942 was issued in favour of the said auction -purchaser. Subsequently the said auction purchaser, namely, Bank transferred and sold the said auction purchased properties in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's further case is that other co -sharer -landlord of village ltahey, namely, Mosomat Deokuri Kuer along with her minor son Lilu Singh instituted partition Suit No. 7/95 claiming partition of the properties of village -ltahey. In the aforesaid partition suit the petitioner had no concern with the respondent's property but they were impleaded as proforma defendants. The said suit was decreed and final decree was passed in 1975. It is stated that Takhta No. 15 comprising of various plots of village Itahi was carved out and allotted to the petitioner, whereas Takhta No.2 was allotted to the respondent no. 4, namely, Jamir Mian. Thereafter pursuant to an order passed in Execution Case No. 4/ 75 by sub -ordinate judge, Palamu at Daltonganj the petitioner was delivered possession of the lands of Takhta No. 15 on 2.5.1976. The petitioner after coming in possession of the said land, filed an application before the Circle Officer, Lesliganj for separation of the demand in his favour, in accordance with the final decree, allotment and delivery of possession which was allowed vide Miscellaneous Case No. 20/76 -77. The petitioner thereafter started paying rent to the State, of Bihar.
(3.) THESE facts which have been stated from paras 4 to 14 of the writ petition has not been specifically and categorically denied by the respondents. It appears that after about 12 years the respondent filed an application before the Circle Officer for cancellation of the Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner, copy of the application has been annexed as Annexure7 to the writ petition. From perusal of the annexure -7 it appears that allegation was made that there was no basis for opening Zamabandi in the name of the petitioner in the year 1979. The relief sought for in the said application was that Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner be cancelled and justice be given to the tribals and the persons of minority community living in the said village. On the said application the Additional Collector made an inquiry and after hearing the parties allowed the said application and cancelled the demand running in the name of the petitioner mainly on the ground that a partition suit being partition suit no. 86/88 was pending before the sub -judge, Palamu. The Additional Collector on the aforesaid ground quashed the two orders passed in Miscellaneous Case Nos. 26/76 -77 and 23/79 -80.;