Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Manju Singh Wife of Late Chandra Mauleshwar Prasad Narayan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11497 of 2018
Decided On : 29-01-2019
Yogesh Chandra Verma, Adv., Rakesh Narayan Singh, Adv., Sajid Salim Khan, Adv., Prakrititi Sharma, Adv., Chandan Priyadarshi, Adv.
The dispute over title and possession of the land cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Private Pond - Disputed Settlement - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 2(j), Section 3 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim of private ownership of a disputed pond, the settlement of the pond as Government Sairat, and the continuous possession and payment of rent by the petitioner. The court highlighted the interpretation of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1950 defining homestead land and the relevance of revisional survey entries. The court emphasized that the dispute over title and possession of the land cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a disputed pond as her private pond, citing continuous possession and payment of rent. The respondents settled the pond as Government Sairat and denied the petitioner's claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute over title and possession of the land cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim of private ownership, continuous possession, and settlement of the pond as Government Sairat by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute over title and possession of the land cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to seek remedy through a civil court or other forum.
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. This writ application has been filed against the action of the respondents in settling a pond bearing Survey Plot No. 3392, new Khata No. 192, new Plot No. 5680, admeasuring 7 acres 5 decimals in Mauza-Katia under Basopatti Anchal in the district of Madhubani, which according to the petitioner, is her private pond, in favour of respondent no. 8, treating the same to be a Government Sairat. The petitioner is seeking cancellation of the said settlement. It is her case that in the cadastral survey, the disputed plot was recorded as Gairmajarua khas land (pokhar) of the landlord Babu Awadh Bihari Narayan Singh, who was the father-in-law of the petitioner. There is a statement made in paragraph 7 of the writ application that, at the time of vesting of Zamindari, the landlord had filed return of the land in the name of the family. During the revisional survey, the said old C.S. Plot No. 3392 was recorded as R.S. Khata No. 192, R.S. Plot No. 5680 (area 7 acres 5 decimals) in the name of the petitioner's husband Late Chandra Mauleshwar Prasad Narayan Singh @ Mohan Singh. It is her further case that she is in possession of the aforesaid land and the rent receipts have been issued in favour of the petitioner till date i.e. up to 2017-18, in respect of the land in question. Vide Memo No.155 dated 07.6.2018, the Circle Officer, Basopatti, had directed the petitioner to appear before him on 09.06.2018, where after he had appeared before him and filed a petition, along with all the documents, asserting that the disputed land is a private Pokhar. It has been asserted that the Circle Officer expressed his inability as no record in respect of the disputed pond was available. It is also her case that she contacted the office of the District Fisheries Officer, Madhubani for providing the list of Sarkari Sairat/Jalkar and the private Jalkar situated in Bassopatti Anchal. No such document was, however, provided to her. She has also asserted that she was not provided with the document of the disputed settlement of the Pokhar, which she has now obtained from the backdoor.
2. A supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed, stating therein that the land in dispute is adjacent to the house of the petitioner which is her homestead land within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1950'). It has been asserted in the said supplementary affidavit that the land, in question, did not ever vest in the State Government and, at the instance of one local MLA, the same had been fraudulently inserted in the list of Sairat by 'the then Circle Officer, Basopatti, who was dancing to the tunes of the then local MLA'. It is thus her claim that on the basis of the fraud committed at the instance of the then MLA and the Circle Officer, Basopatti, the entire records of the circle office, Basopatti have been tampered.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Circle Officer, Basopatti, wherein he has denied that the disputed land has been recorded in the revisional survey in the name of the petitioner's Late husband. It has, however, been stated that the said land stood vested in the State of Bihar, after abolition of Zamindari, but in the revisional survey khatiyan, the name of the petitioner's husband has wrongly been recorded and steps are being taken for necessary corrections. It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that the tank, in question, has been settled with the 'F.C.S.', (which, to me, appears to be an abbreviated form of the 'Fisheries Co-operative Society'), since long and the Society is in possession of the Tank. It has also been stated that the tank was being regularly settled by 'F.F.D.A.', Madhubani and the settlee has been coming in possession over the same. As regards the non-availability of the record as asserted in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ application, it has been stated in the counter affida
