ABDUS SALAM Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that an order incorporated in Annexure 8 dated the 24th September, 1970 passed by the Board of Revenue may be quashed and ancillary reliefs given to the petitioner. The relevant facts are as follows: On the 20th March, 1970, auction was held by the Block Development Officer for the settlement of what is described as Rauta Hat in village Rauta within Baisa Anchal in the sadar Subdivision of Purnea. The petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid had gone upto Rs. 35,900/ -. Respondent no. 9 of this application was an unsuccessful bidder. It appears from the writ application that the Commissioner of the Division had approved of the auction in favour of he petitioner by his order dated the 5th May, 1970. Annexure 4 is a copy of the letter issued from the office of the Commissioner, Bhagalpore Division, to the Collector of Purnea. That letter stated that the settlement may be made to the highest bidder. According to the petitioner of this case, a telegram dated the 8th May 1970 had then been issued from the Revenue Secretary, Patna, to the Collector of Purnea, a copy of which has been given as Annexure 6 (Sri Tarakant Jha states from the record of the case in his possession that the telegram was dated 15th May, 1970). That telegram purports to state that Government, after careful consideration had approved of the action taken by the Commissioner, Bhagalpore Division, with respect to the settlement of Rauta Hat for 1970 -71 with the present petitioner the highest bidder. Now it appears that respondent no. 9 had filed a revisional application before the Board of Revenue, upon which the order incorporated in Annexure 8 was given. By that order the Additional Member, Board of Revenue set aside the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Bhagalpore Division contained in the letter dated the 5th May, 1970 (Annexure 4) and upheld an order of the Collector of Purnea for settlement of the Hat with respondent no. 9. The petitioner in the writ case has stated in Paragraphs 22 and 34 that in the case filed before the Board of Revenue, the petitioner had not been impleaded as a party and no notice had been issued to him about the case and he was not at all aware of the case. It has been stated, further that the case was decided without hearing the petitioner. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order incorporated in Annexure 8 ought to be quashed for the reason that after the approval of the settlement with the petitioner, he was not even heard by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, when an adverse order was passed against him. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 9, but the learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to state where the statements made in Paragraphs 22 and 34 of ' the writ application have been controverted regarding notice to the writ petitioner. On the contrary, Paragraph 17 of the counter -affidavit assumes that the petitioner of the writ application was neither noticed nor heard in the Board of Revenue. It has been stated in Paragraph 17 of the counter -affidavit that only the State of Bihar was interested in the case before the Board and the State of Bihar was the only respondent before the Board. In such circumstances, we are of opinion that on this ground alone the order incorporated in Annexure 8 must be quashed. The petitioner of the writ case is seriously affected by the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, without giving notice to him and without hearing him. Rights had accrued to him by the orders passed by the Commissioner and by the Government, as indicated above, and the petitioner should have been heard by the Board of Revenue before the case instituted by respondent no. 9 could be disposed of. Sri Tarakant Jha appearing for the State of Bihar has mentioned that he has found from the record of the case with him that the Government have passed an order by which a direction has been given for annulling the settlement made with the present writ petitioner. To that, the learned counsel for the petitioner states, that, his client has no notice of any order actually annulling the settlement. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with what has happened after the writ application was admitted by this Court, as we are concerned with the validity or invalidity of the order incorporated in Annexure 8, in the present case. For the reasons given above, it must be held that the order incorporated in Annexure 8 cannot be supported. We, therefore, quash the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 24th September 1970 in case no. 169 of 1970, a copy of which has been given in Annexure 8. What the result of this judgment by this Court will be, so far as the right of the writ petitioner is concerned, is left open. There will be no order for costs.