IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the finality of litigation and the legal certainty conferred by the judgment and decree in favor of the petitioner, along with the award from the Permanent Lok Adalat.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.08.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, in Misc. Case No. 92 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner, in the light of the order dated 3.8.2012, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in CWJC No. 2421 of 2012, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the Chief Trustee of Sevak Sanjay Nath Kali Nayas, situated at Kali Nagari, Raxaul in the District of East Champaran. It has been stated that Sri Jagmohan Lal, son of late Ram Awatar Ram, had acquired 17 katha, 17 dhur of land, situated at Mauza-Raxaul, Khata No.6, Khesra-810, by a registered sale deed, executed by the Bank of Bihar, on 26.4.1946. A title suit bearing Title Suit No.189 of 1989 is stated to have been filed, before the learned Sub-Judge, Motihari, by the aforesaid Jagmohan Lal and the learned Court of Sub-Judge-III, Motihari, by a judgment dated 01.8.1994 held that the property in question is in possession of the plaintiff, the State of Bihar has got no right to determine the lease, as such the defendants are restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession and occupation of the plaintiff over the suit land/ property. The Ld. Court of Sub-Judge-III, Motihari, thus ordered that the suit is decreed against the defendants and it is declared that the petitioner has acquired valid and indivisible right, title and interest in the suit premises as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. In paragraph no.25 of the said judgment dt. 01.8.1994, it has been recorded that the plaintiff, i.e. Jagmohan Lal had purchased the suit land from the Bank of Bihar, through a registered sale deed dt. 26.4.1946. The Ld. Court of Sub-Judge-III, East Champaran at Motihari had then prepared the decree dated 11.08.1994.

3. The aforesaid judgment dt. 1.8.1994, passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Judge-III, Motihari was challenged by the Bettiah Raj, by filing a title appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 68 of 1994, however, the same has been dismissed by an order dated 07.05.2004, passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Motihari. It is also submitted that though a restoration petition was filed, but the same has also been dismissed. Subsequently, the aforesaid Jagmohan Lal sold 1 katha, 10 dhur of land, from the aforesaid chunk of land to the petitioner and had also handed over its peaceful possession to the petitioner, whereupon a formal agreement of sale in favor of the petitioner was executed on 02.04.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition before the permanent Lok Adalat, East Champaran at Motihari on 22.07.2005, which was numbered as Case No.340/2005 and the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat, East Champaran at Motihari, by an order dated 14.07.2005, had passed an award with regard to 1 katha 10 dhur of land appertaining to Khata No.6, Khesra no. 810, Tauzi No.951, Mauza-Raxual, Police Station-Raxaul, holding that the respondent namely, Jagmohan Lal has not made any claim over the said piece of land and he had disposed the said piece of land by a sale letter dt. 02.04.2002. Thus, on the basis of a compromise, the said case no. 340 of 2005 was disposed off by the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat, East Champaran at Motihari by an award dated 14.07.2005 by recording herein that the petitioner is having right, title and interest over the said land in question and nobody has got any connection with the same.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had then constructed a boundary wall over the said plot in question and wanted to construct a Charitable Hospital, however, some people having vested interest, with a view to harass the petitioner, had filed an application for cancellation of the mutation carried out in favor of said Jagmohan Lal, before the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, which was numbered as Case No.37 of 2008, however, the said application was dis