The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the DCLR to entertain the dispute was determined by the specific provisions of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, and not the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009.

The eleven petitioners, by this writ petition, have challenged the jurisdiction of DCLR, Sasaram to entertain the proceedings as initiated before him by private respondents No.9 to 14. Respondents No.11 to 14 are sons of respondents No.9 and 10 who are husband and wife. Therefore, the private respondents are one family of father, mother and four sons.

2. Shri Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the nature of dispute that has been placed before the DCLR purporting to be under the provisions of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 cannot be and ought not to be permitted to be entertained. When the writ petition was filed, an interim order restraining DCLR was passed. Later on, it is alleged that after the order was passed, DCLR passed a backdated order allowing the application of the private respondents and directing the eviction of the petitioners.

3. Pursuant to notice, the private respondents appeared. Shri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents has tried to raise an issue that the dispute relates to certain plots of land and petitioners do not claim any right over certain plots. Writ petition ought not to be entertained. He further submitted that the DCLR, having now passed the final order, the petitioners must go in appeal and for that reason also, the writ petition must not be entertained.

4. Counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition was heard for its final disposal at this stage itself.

5. Having considered the matter I find this is one of the cases which is exemplary of abuse of power and position. This shows how conferment of such far reaching powers on executive, untrained in law, leads to total miscarriage of justice. Undisputed facts would show the same.

6. The proceedings were initiated by an application made by the private respondents before the DCLR and registered as Land Dispute Case No 91 of 2012. The application is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The applicants are the six private respondents and there are twelve opposite parties. It is stated that one Jabbar, son of late Bashir Khan, who was opposite party No 3 having died, he has not joined this writ petition. The rest eleven opposite parties are the writ petitioners. A mere reference to the entire pleadings, as contained in Annexure 8, the application before the DCLR, gives out the following facts.

7. The applicants (private respondents herein) state that they have, by registered sale deed, purchased from the father, namely, Inderchand Kejriwal of the vendor certain plots of land on which the opposite parties were tenants in shops built thereon. The address of the opposite parties, each one of them, would show that they are readymade garments shop owners or other shop owners of the Complex known as Meena Bazar in Sasaram Town. It is averred therein that these opposite parties (petitioners herein) were not paying rent from before and were defaulters. They were evading payment of rent. The temporary structure was required to be demolished so that pucca shops could be made. Accordingly, it was prayed that as they were defaulter tenants, they should be evicted and possession restored to the applicants (private respondents herein). A plain reading of this application is that evict the defaulter tenants and restore possession to the landlord. There is no dispute otherwise.

8. Shri Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel submits that this application was mala fide filed and mala fide entertained by the DCLR for obvious reason. Having purchased the property with tenants, the private respondents now wanted to evict the tenants to develop the property. The property is in the heart of town of Sasaram and is a very valuable property. The only way to get quick and summary eviction was through DCLR. In sum and substance, the application being for evicting defaulting tenants, it was squarely covere