The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of acquiring occupancy rights as under Raiyat for mutation under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.

JUDGMENT :

NAWNEET KUMAR, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17683 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and upheld the order of the learned Member (Judicial), Bihar Land Tribunal in B.L.T. Case No. 21 of 2018, whereby he affirmed the order dated 29.09.2017, passed by the Additional Collector, Kaimur in Mutation Revision Case No. 36 of 2014-15 and the order dated 25.04.2015 passed by the D.C.L.R. Mohania in Mutation Appeal No. 105 of 2014-15, whereby the names of respondent nos. 5 to 8 were ordered to be mutated.

2. The brief fact of this case is that the appellants claim their rights of occupancy tenancy being Bataidar of ancestors of vendors of respondent nos. 5 to 8, whereas respondent nos. 5 to 8 had got their names mutated over the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed from the lineal descendants of the recorded Raiyat. The matter has travelled thrice to this Court, but the up-to-date position is that the Bataidarirights of the appellants has not been adjudicated upon and is still sub-judice before the Bihar Land Tribunal in B.L.T. Case No. 155/2021 (still pending).

3. It is an admitted fact that the disputed lands are ancestral lands of vendors of respondent nos. 5 to 8.

4. In the year 1948-1949, the names of Baladin Darji and others (ancestors of appellants) were entered as Sikmidar during revisional survey showing them to be settlees from the original Raiyat. A proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated, in which, the ancestors of the vendor of respondent nos. 5 to 8 appeared and contested. That matter was referred to Civil Court as Miscellaneous Case No. 119 (M) of 1966. The Additional Munsif heard and decided that case and held the possession of ancestors of vendor of respondent nos. 5 to 8, vide order dated 27.09.1967. The ancestors of the appellants filed Criminal Revision No. 418 of 1968 before the Sessions Judge, Sasaram, challenging the order of the Munsif in Miscellaneous Case No. 119 (M) of 1966. That Criminal Revision No. 418 of 1968 was dismissed.

5. After Jamindari abolition, the ex-landlord submitted return in favour of Paudhari Kuer, mother of vendor of respondent nos. 5 to 8. As the Sikmidarentry was existing in the name of ancestors of the appellants, the ancestors of the vendor filed Title Suit No. 636 of 1970 in Civil Court under Section 109 of B.T. Act for correction of wrong revisional survey entry standing in the name of appellants’ ancestors claiming it to be baseless. During pendency of that title suit, Section 109 of B.T. Act was struck down by this Court, consequently, Title Suit No. 636 of 1970 was dismissed. After death of Paudhari Kuer, her son Dinanath Singh filed Mutation Case No. 645/1974-75, which was allowed. Meanwhile consolidation proceeding started in the area. In consolidation proceedings, the register of lands was prepared in the name of ancestors of the appellants. Against which, Dinanath Singh filed objection. That objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 18.10.1986. Against that order, vendor of respondent nos. 5 to 8 filed Consolidation Appeal No. 290/1987-88. That appeal was allowed, vide order dated 16.08.1988, and the order of Consolidation Officer was set aside. The ancestors of the appellants preferred Consolidation Revision No. 2377 of 1988 against the order of the Consolidation Appellate Authority, and that revision was dismissed, vide order dated 06.09.1993. Ancestors of the appellants filed C.W.J.C. No. 9579/1993 before this Court against the order of the revisional authority, which was dismissed on 06.07.1995. Thereafter, ancestors of the appellants filed Case No. 3M of 1994 before the Circle Officer under Section 48 (D) of the B.T. Act for declaration of their Raiyati rights on the basis of prescription of occupancy under Ra