IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JYOTI SARAN, J.
Yadunandan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.844 of 2014
Decided On : 03-08-2015
Bihar Land Reforms Act - Quashing of order - Section 4(h) - [FACT OF THE CASE] In this case, the petitioner seeks to quash an order directing proceedings under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for cancellation of a jamabandi. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the authorities mechanically upheld the complaint without examining the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. [ISSUES] The issues included the settlement of land, possession, and the authority's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the settlement and possession of the land for almost six decades could not be unsettled without legal basis. [FINAL DECISION] The court set aside the impugned order and quashed any proceeding initiated based on it.
In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. the District Magistrate, Patna and the Superintendent of Police, Patna as contained in Annexure-6, whereby the Circle Officer, Mokama has been directed to initiate proceedings under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for cancellation of the jamabandi bearing no.79 standing in the name of the father of the petitioner Ramgulam Singh in respect of the land bearing khata no.1258, plot no.4027 situated in Mauza Moldiyar Tola, Ward No.11, P.S.- Mokama in the district of Patna.
2. Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, learned Assisting Counsel to Standing Counsel No.23 has appeared for the State, Mr. Arvind Nath Pandey has appeared for the Nagar Parishad, Mokama and Mr. Kapildeo Singh has appeared for the private respondent no.8 at whose instance the proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner.
3. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while advancing the case of the petitioner has submitted that the plot of land in question is a joint ancestral family property of the petitioner and was settled by the Ex-Zamindar in favour of the father of the petitioner Ramgulam Singh way back in 1936. He submits that although the plot of land is having a larger area but an area of 27¾ decimals was settled with the father of the petitioner. It is submitted that the name of the father of the petitioner was entered in Register-II and a jamabandi bearing no.79 was created and which has continued since 1956. He submits that since after the settlement of the land by the Ex-Zamindar, the father of the petitioner and thereafter the present petitioner has been paying rent and are in possession of the rent-receipts. It is with reference to an order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DCLR’) present at Annexure-2 submitted that upon some complaint being made that the Circle Officer, Mokama recommended for cancellation of the jamabandi bearing no.79 standing in the name of the father of the petitioner and which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 1993-94. “The DCLR’ taking note of the documents in possession of the father of the petitioner supporting his claim of settlement and possession over the land since 1936 and while taking note of the judgments rendered on the issue, upheld the claim of the father of the petitioner and dropped the proceedings vide order passed on 6.6.1994. He submits that the matter having put to rest in 1994, resurfaced after 20 years when a public interest litigation was filed by the private respondent giving rise to CWJC No.21487 of 2013 charging the petitioner of unauthorizedly encroaching on land of the Nagar Parishad. He submits that without any notice to the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order passed on 28.10.2013 placed at Annexure-5 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Patna and the Superintendent of Police, Patna to examine the issue of unauthorized encroachment and act in accordance with law. It is submitted that the impugned order has thereafter been passed signed jointly by the two authorities impugned at Annexure-6 whereby the two authorities without appreciating the legal provisions and the binding precedent of the judgment on the issue have recommended for initiation of proceedings under section 4(h) of ‘the Act’ for cancellation of jamabandi of the petitioner. He submits that the two authorities while passing the impugned order have also issued direction to the Station House Officer, Mokama and the Circle Officer, Mokama to ensure that the petitioner does not carry out any construction work on the land. He submits that although the plot admeasures 47 decimals of which the petitioner was settled and is paying rent in respect of 273/4 decimals as manifest
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.