DINESH SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the admission stage itself we have heard the learned Advocates for the parties at full length and with their consent we are disposing of this application at this very stage. The question involved in this case is a pure question of law, as to whether the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no. 3) who passed the impugned order (Annexure -1) exercising the powers under Sec. 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act read with the rules framed thereunder, can be said to be 'collector' within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Act or not ?

(2.) The petitioner had advanced loans on the basis of registered Zarpeshgi deed to respondent no. 4 in respect of 2 kathas 10 dhurs of his land situated in Ramgarhwa Anchal. After the expiry of the period of seven years from the date of the mortgage, respondent no. 4 applied before respondent no. 3 for delivery of possession of the land to him, which has been allowed by the order (Annexure 1) and the appeal therefrom was dismissed by respondent no. 2 by his order contained in Annexure 2.

(3.) The argument is based upon the observation made by a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Baikunth Mandal and others v/s. Sunder Mandal and others, (1983) B.L.J.R. 133 : : 1984 PLJR 509. In that case an application under Sec. 12 of the Act claiming that the mortgage stood wholly redeemed on the expiry of the period of seven years from the date of its execution, was filed before the Anchal Adhikari, Sultanganj, who ordered restoration of possession of the land in question to respondents 1 to 5. The matter was taken before the appellate and revisional authorities by the mortgagee and thereafter ultimately the matter was brought to this Court in the writ jurisdiction and it was contended that the proceeding initiated by respondents 1 to 5 was void ab initio from the very inception inasmuch as the Anchal Adhikari was not a 'collector' within the meaning of the Act.