Anju Kumari vs State of Bihar - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 673

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
CWJC No.4523 of 2020
(31.7.2023)
Smt. Anju Kumari & Ors. ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Priya Gupta.
For the Respondents: Mr.Sajid Salim Khan (SC 25).

Headnote:
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950–Section 6–Settlement of Gair Majaurawa Land/Khas by ex-landlord–vendor of the petitioenrs got the land in question settled by ex-landlord by Parwana and thereafter remained in possession of the land until he sold it to the grandfather of petitioner no. 2 in whose favour the mutation was made in 1986–Appeal and Revision against mutation dismissed–it is settled by the Apex Court that if before date of vesting of the land has been settled and the settlee has remained in possession even on the day of vesting his title has been perfected even on Garmajarua Malik/Khas land–it is also also a settled law that long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the state by simply doubting the Jamabandi–state has to file a Civil Suit for cancelling the long standing Jamabandi–petitioners are in possession of land and there is long standing Jamabandi in their name–state cannot take forcible possession of the land and deny compensation to the petitioners–authorities directed to compensate the petitioners after initiating the proceeding under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Paras 47, 54 & 57)
AIR 196 SC 1041, 1987 Supp. SCC. 56–Referred.

Sandeep Kumar, J. –

Re. I.A. No. 1 of 2020

The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory (I.A. No. 1 of 2020), the same is allowed.

3. Accordingly, the averments made in the I.A. No. 1 of 2020 shall be treated to be the part of the main petition.

Re. I.A. No. 4 of 2021

4. The present interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of the Petitioner No. 1 (Smt. Anju Kumari) who died on 09.12.2020 leaving behind her heirs and legal representatives.

5. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 4 of 2021) is allowed.

6. The heirs and legal representatives of the Petitioner No. 1 (Smt. Anju Kumari) as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the present interlocutory application be substituted in her place and the name of Petitioner No. 1 (Smt. Anju Kumari) be expunged from the array of the parties.

Re. C.W.J.C. No. 4523 of 2020

7. Heard the parties.

8. The present application has been filed for following reliefs: –

(i) For quashing of the order dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya on the Appeal filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2016 by which he has failed to redress the grievance of the petitioners and closed the case as being illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) For quashing the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Additional Collector-Cum-District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, by which he failed to apply his mind for redressal of the grievance of the petitioners.

(iii) For issuance of appropriate Writ or direction upon the Respondents to forthwith restore back the possession of the land of the petitioners to them which the Respondents have forcibly taken in possession and has deprived its possession to the petitioners and as such the petitioners are suffering everyday.

(iv) For issuance of a direction upon the Respondents to vacate the petitioners’ land and if the Respondents fail to take recourse of any proceeding for legal acquisition of land for taking possession of the same as it has not only deprived the petitioners from possession without making payment of any compensation but are also illegally continuing in possession over the entire 3 Acres most valuable land of the petitioners.

(v) For direction upon the Respondents to forthwith pay the compensation of the petitioners’ land unauthorizedly taken over by the Respondents and continuing the same on day-to-day basis as the Respondents have illegally constructed road and Chhath Ghat on the land of the petitioners without initiating any acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation for the same.

(vi) For direction upon the Respondents to get the land measured from the side of Pipardih Main Road to carve out the total area of land measuring 3 Acres and either to vacate forthwith the said land and hand over the possession of the same to the petitioner or to pay the compensation of the same as per law and the present government value as per Circle Rate without delay.

(vii) For a direction upon the respondents to get the land measured from some independent Amin or Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner who are not in any manner connected with the District Authorities or even the Nagar Parishad, Aurangabad.

(viii) For declaration that the act of the Respondents to dispossess the petitioners from their land without initiating any land acquisition proceeding for the same is arbitrary and malafide on part of the Respondents and/or to pass such other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Late Bansnayak Singh, the father-in-law (Sasur) of the Smt. Anju Kumari (since deceased) and the Grand Father of the petitioner No. 2 had purchased a land