Mahesh Das v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2045 of 2014 ====================================================== Mahesh Das, Son Of Late Kailash Das, Resident Of Village- Khem Karu Pakari, P.S.- Shivajipatti, P.O.- Tegrari, District- Muzaffarpur At Present Resident Of Village- Muhammadpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Circle Officer, Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur
3. Bhuneshwar Dar @ Jaldhar Das, son of late Sarhu Das, resident of village-Jaganath Pakari, P.S.-Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent nos.1&2 : Mr. Gautam Bose, AAG-8 Mr.Rohit Mishra, AC to AAG-8 For the Respondent no.3 : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2016 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2012 passed in Homestead Parcha Case No.24 of 2011-12 by the respondent Circle Officer, Minapur, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the claim raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 under the provisions of The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (in short 'Act') has been allowed and the homestead parcha has been directed to be issued in his favour with respect to the lands in question, fully detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. He is also aggrieved by the consequential parcha issued in favour of the respondent no.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned order passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Minapur, has raised various issues of facts and law with respect to the lands
Patna High Court CWJC No.2045 of 2014 (4) dt.02-05-2016 in question as also with respect to the order impugned, but, on a query made by this Court, he has fairly conceded that, against the order impugned, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 21 of the Act before the District Collector, Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are unanimous in their submissions that, in view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner before the District Collector, Muzaffarpur, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and is fit to be dismissed on that ground alone.
It is well settled that the issues of facts are required to be raised and conclusively decided by the statutory authorities and only thereafter powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the High Court may be invoked. In the present case, indisputably, certain issues of facts are under dispute between the parties. Indisputably, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 21 of the Act before the District Collector, Muzaffarpur.
In above view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, Muzaffarpur and file an appropriate petition under Section 21 of the Act.
If such a petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of two months from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the present writ petition.
It is clarified that the parties shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts and law before the District Collector,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2045 of 2014 (4) dt.02-05-2016 Muzaffarpur, which may be available to them, with respect to the lands in question as also with respect to the order impugned. It is also clarified that, if the respondent no.3 is found to have died during the pendency of the present writ petition, then, in that case, his heirs and legal representatives shall be impleaded as party respondents in the petition filed before the District Collector, Muzaffarpur and any final order shall be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U