SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Basudev Saw, son of Late Ram Kisun Saw and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9536 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajani Kant Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 is intended to resolve disputes arising under specific Acts mentioned in Schedule-1, and applications must fall within the scope of those Acts to be maintainable.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 - Section 4(c), Section 4(h) - The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash an order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dehri, Rohtas in a land dispute resolution case. The respondent no.5 had filed an application for demarcation of purchased land, claiming a boundary dispute under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. The petitioners had also filed an application for demarcation under the same Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent no.5's application was not maintainable under the Act as he was neither an allottee nor a settlee as defined under the Act. The court held that the purpose of the Act was to resolve disputes arising under specific Acts mentioned in Schedule-1, and as the respondent no.5's case did not fall under any of those Acts, his application was not maintainable.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent no.5's application for demarcation of purchased land was maintainable under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Act, specifically section 4(c) and section 4(h), and analyzed the definition of 'allottee or settlee' under the Act. The court also considered the preamble of the Act to ascertain the legislative intent.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order passed in the land dispute resolution case, holding that the respondent no.5's application was not maintainable under the Act. The writ application was allowed in favor of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. The petitioners have filed the instant application for the following relief(s):

    “That, the petitioners crave indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dehri, Rohtas in Land Dispute Resolution Case No.17/2021-22 as contained in Annexure-2 whereby and whereunder learned L.R.D.C. Dehri has declared that the petitioners and respondent no.5 both have equal share of one katha of the land in question and Circle officer Dehri was directed to hand over the possession after measurement by Anchal Amin and it has been further directed that after measurement the remaining land of about 5 ft. may be demarcated as Rasta and further to pass any order/orders, direction/directions, command/ commands directing the respondents to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over R.S.Khata no.654/C.S.Khata no.104, R.S. Plot no.3234/C.S. Plot 1921, area 21 ft. North-South, 85 ft.-East-West, situated in Mauza Ganguli, P.S.-Dehri, Thana no.148, Ward no.1, Nagar Parishad, Dehri Dalmianagar, District-Rohtas, and further to declare the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in Land Dispute Resolution Case no.17/2021-22 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.”

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the instant application arises out of an order dated 20.5.2022 passed in Resolution Case no.17/2021-22 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dehri, Rohtas.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned dated 20.5.2022 was passed by the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas on an application filed by the respondent no.5 under section 4(c) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is submitted that the respondent no.5 neither being an allottee nor a settlee as defined under section 2(f) of the Act, the application under section 4(c) of the Act itself was not maintainable and consequently the order impugned dated 20.5.2022 (Annexure-2) is without jurisdiction. Thus, the same be set aside and the writ application be allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submitted that from perusal of the application filed by the respondent no.5, copy of which has been brought on record as annexures to the writ application, it would transpire that the same is not under section 4(c) of the Act and mentioning the application of respondent no.5 as being under section 4(c) of the Act in the order impugned dated 20.5.2022, the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas has committed an error of record. It is submitted that as stated in his petition before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, the respondent no.5 purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 27.9.2019 and had filed the application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas praying for demarcation of his purchased land. Thus, in effect, the application of the respondent no.5 was with respect to boundary dispute which comes under section 4(h) of the Act.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the affidavits on record, it transpires that the petitioners purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 3548 dated 27.9.2019 and thereafter a jamabandi was opened in his name. It is for this land that the petitioners filed the application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas which was registered as Land Dispute Case no.17/2021-22 praying therein for demarcation.

7. From the materials on record, what is not in dispute is that the application filed by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas was under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.

8. Section 4 of the Act talks about the jurisdiction and author

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top