Lallan Kumar Sahni Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

public demands recovery act - applicability of--auction of jalkar--petition to withdraw certificate proceeding and for refund of 50% of bid amount--plea that though his bid accepted but possession not delivered nor parwana issued--matter pending approval and no agreement entered between parties'--certificate proceedings not sustainable in absence of any parwana--held--impugned order not sustainable--accordingly set aside--petition allowed. - .....was not put in possession of the jalkar he never operated for the usufruct.4. prima facie, it appears from the order impugned that the matter was pending approval before the divisional commissioner and no agreement was entered into in between the parties.5. learned counsel for the state does not dispute the factum of non-issuance of parwana in favour of the petitioner nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state.6. while admitting this writ application on 4.9.1986 operation of the order impugned was stayed.7. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner is held to be not sustainable in absence of parwana, issued by the authorities in favour of the petitioner.8. in the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 3, is set aside. the respondent authorities are directed to refund 50% of the bid amount, so deposited by the petitioner forthwith.no order as to costs.

Judgment:

Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 3 dated 6.8.1984, whereby and whereunder prayers of the petitioner for refund of 50% of bid amount and to withdraw the certificate proceeding have been rejected.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Pashupati Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner that though a bid was held on 4.2.1983 and the bid of the petitioner was accepted being the highest one, no Parwana was issued putting him in possession, and, therefore, the certificate proceeding initiated against him under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that merely because the petitioner had deposited 50% of the bid amount he would not be deemed to be in possession. Learned Counsel points out from the impugned order that the matter was pending consideration before the Divisional Commissioner and the parties have not entered into an agreement nor Parwana was issued. Learned Counsel, in this view of the matter, submitted that since the petitioner was not put in possession of the Jalkar he never operated for the usufruct.

4. Prima facie, it appears from the order impugned that the matter was pending approval before the Divisional Commissioner and no agreement was entered into in between the parties.

5. Learned Counsel for the State does not dispute the factum of non-issuance of Parwana in favour of the petitioner nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State.

6. While admitting this writ application on 4.9.1986 operation of the order impugned was stayed.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner is held to be not sustainable in absence of Parwana, issued by the authorities in favour of the petitioner.

8. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 3, is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to refund 50% of the bid amount, so deposited by the petitioner forthwith.

No order as to costs.