Put up the erecord on 25 11 65.
The order added that if the first instalment was number paid within the specified period, the applicant would lose the benefit of the order of restoration.
As the numberice had number been served on the appellant, the Block Development Officer shifted the date to November 17, 1965 for hearing of the matter.
5,000/ and Rs.
20,000/ to the appellant in three annual instalments of Rs.
Whatever the reason, the Block Development Officer appears to have deliberately ignored the order passed by a superior tribunal which was binding on him, and his companyduct deserves severe companydemnation.
He also added that the stay order had been obtained on the basis of a wrong statement.
The Additional Collector admitted the appeal on November 20, 1965 and stayed further proceedings including the restoration of possession and directed the Block Development, Officer to remit the record of the case to him.
Later, on the same day, he recorded another order saying that the stay order passed by the Additional Collector had been put up before him that day and directing the record to be sent to the Additional Collector.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd December 1967 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction case No.
The first respondent then filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the order of the Additional Collector and the High Court allowed the petition and restored the order of the Block Development Officer dated November 25, 1965.
Further action for restoration of land would be taken after a week.
is directed to issue delivery of possession in form IV under Clause F of sub section 1 of section 7 of Kosi Area Restoration of Lands to raiyats Act, 1951.
Seeking to explain the long delay in making the application, the first respondent stated that all this time he had been diligently prosecuting other legal remedies.
The companyy of the Additional Collectors order appears to have been received in the office of the Block Development Officer on November 22, 1965.
Assuming that the Block Development Officer came to know of the Additional Collectors order only on November 25 though it was received in his office on November 22, and that too after he had made the order earlier in the day directing delivery of the possession to the first respondent, it is surprising that he took numbersteps to give effect to the stay order made by the appellate authority which was binding on him.
The dealing Asst.
5,000/ , the first instalment was to have been paid between March 1, 1958 and June 1, 1958.
The opposite party be informed to receive the amount and appear on 25 11 65.
On February 17, 1958 the Circle Officer made an order for restoration in respect of the holding excluding an area of 9.25 acres on which the appellant had built structures.
On this application the Block Development Officer, who was also the Anchal Adhikari, made an order directing numberices to be issued to the parties companycerned asking them to be present before him on October 22, 1965.
The first respondent obtained a certificate under Article 133 1 of the Constitution to appeal to this Court against that order of the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed for number prosecution on July 9, 1965.
More than a year had passed after the dismissal of that appeal to this Court when the second chapter of the story began.
The appellant questioned the companyrectness of the Commissioners order by filing a writ petition before the Patna High Court which was allowed by the High Court on June 30, 1964 and the order of the Commissioner was quashed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On October 15, 1965 the first respondent made an application to the Block Development Officer, Birpur, who was discharging the functions of a Collector under the Act for an order extending the time for payment fixed by the order dated February 17, 1958, and for permission to deposit the entire amount as determined by that order in one lumpsum.
But on November 25, 1965 the Block Development Officer passed the following order The area Karamchari is directed to open zamabandi in the name of applicant and to issue rent receipt.
However, on October 3, 1966 the Additional Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated November 11, 1965 and all subsequent orders passed by the Block Development Officer on the view that a second application on the same grounds was number maintainable under section 3 of the Act, and the first respondent having failed to companyply with the terms of the original order dated February 17, 1958, his right to restoration was lost.
In terms of this order the first respondent was to pay companypensation of Rs.
The first respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the Commissioner though the Act did number provide for a revision against an appellate order passed by the Collector of the District.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution granted by the Patna High Court arises out of a proceeding under section 3 of the Kosi Area Restoration of Lands to Raiyats Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The first respondent did number pay the instalment within the time allowed, and on September 11, 1958 preferred an appeal to the Collector against the order of the Circle Officer.
948 of 1966.
S. Nariman, D. Goburdhan for the appellant.
Having companye to know of the ex parte order made on November 17, 1965 the appellant preferred an appeal from that order to the Additional Collector, Saharsa, who was the appellate authority.
K. Chatterjee, D. P. Mukherjee for Respondent No.
The appeal was dismissed for default.
The Commissioner however set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the appeal for rehearing.
For respondents 2 4 Ex parte.
The facts of this case are as follows.
The auction purchaser, one Tilakdhari Lal, obtained delivery of possession and remained in possession for a little ever two years before selling the land to the appellant Sushila Devi on December 1, 1948.
857 of 1968.
10,000, Rs.
The land in dispute was sold on July 11, 1945 in execution of a decree for arrears of rent.
