Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the report dated 11.8.1995 of the Circle Officer, Daltonganj (respondent No. 3) as contained at Annexure 5 and also the Order dated 18.10.1995 passed thereupon by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, (respondent No. 2), whereby and where -under he came to the conclusion that the lands had been settled in violation of the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Ceiling Act). He accordingly cancelled the settlements which had been made in favour of the petitioners and further directed the Circle Officer to take possession of the records and to send recommendation to the sub -divisional officer for purposes of distribution of the lands in question to persons of the appropriate category. The Deputy Commissioner also observed that if the opposite parties therein had any thing to say then they could do so by filing an appeal under the provision of 37 of the Ceiling Act.
(2.) THE aforementioned order was passed on 18.10.1995, Mr. K.K. Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that by a gazette notification published on 8.9.1995, Section 37 of the Ceiling Act was deleted. The aforementioned gazette notification was communicated to all Divisional Commissioners, Additional Collectors and Deputy Commissioners by forwarding a letter dated 26.9.1995. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Sahay draws attention of this Court to Annexure 6 (running pages 61 to 64 of the Writ Petition). From a perusal of the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner as also the contents of Annexure 6 (the forwarding letter) and also upon reading the gazette notification (relevant portion at running page 64 of the Writ Petition) it is apparent that on the date the impugned order was passed i.e. on 18.10.1995, Section 37 had been deleted on 8.9.1995 and communication of such deletion was circulated to all senior officers including the Deputy Commissioner on 26.9.1995. Therefore the first argument of Mr. K.K. Sahay to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau while passing the impugned order did not apply his mind at all and mechanically directed relegation of the petitioners to the status of appellants to a non -existing forum, is of much force and accepted. On the basis of the reasonings given aforesaid, this Court holds that the action of the Deputy Commissioner in asking the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 37 was totally mechanical and wholly uncalled for.
(3.) APART from the aforesaid, the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 18.10.1995 would go to show that the same suffers from yet another irregularity. It is an order which straight away accepts the report of the Circle Officer, Sadar at Daltonganj and proceeds to cancel the settlement without so much as even bothering to give any notice to the affected persons. In fact, by order dated 16.11.1995 this Court, while giving opportunity to the State to seek instructions, was also of the same view and it was recorded therein as follows : "The grievance of the petitioners, as made out in the writ petition which has, prima facie, impressed me is that in any view of the matter the petitioners having remained in possession of the land in question pursuant to/order of settlement made by the competent authority as contained in Annexure '4' series since 1977 -78 they were at least entitled to opportunity of hearing. From the copy of the enquiry report as also the order passed thereon vide Annexure '5' it does not appear that any such opportunity was given..........";