Rajiv Roy, J. – The question that has arisen in the writ petition is whether the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Rohtas can travel beyond Section 4 of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 (henceforth for short ‘the 2009 Act’) or not.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: –

(i) for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by DCLR, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Land Dispute Case No. 30/2022-23 by which he has directed the Circle Office, Dinara to measured the land of respondent 2nd set and if found opposite party in illegal possession then same may be vacated;

(ii) for directing the official respondents to not take any co-ercive step in the light of order as contained in annexure-1 till final disposal of the writ petition;

(iii) for commanding the respondents to maintain status quo over the land in question till final disposal of the writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to AAG-12 as also Mr. Uday Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6.

4. The facts of the case is/are as follows:

5. The grandfather of the petitioner, namely, late Kedar Singh purchased a piece of land on 04.06.1942 (Annexure-2). In the R.S. khatian prepared during the period 1970-72, the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, Late Kedar Singh was incorporated. The land later came in possession of his son, Harichand Singh and then to the grandson, Akhilesh Singh (the petitioner herein). The rent receipts are also on record (Annexure-4 series).

6. The case of the petitioner is that his agnate, namely, Umda Kuwar gifted some land to his daughter, Dhanpato Devi on 31.08.1982. However, in the said gift, the land of the petitioner/grandfather (late Kedar Singh ) was also included. This followed a Mutation Case no. 161/83 by the Circle Officer, Dinara in favour of Dhanpato Devi which was done ex-parte behind the back of the petitioner.

7. Vide Mutation Appeal no. 870/1984-85, the father of the petitioner, Dharikchan Singh preferred aforesaid appeal before the DCLR, Bikramganj who called for a report and on the basis of the report submitted by the Circle Officer, having been satisfied, the mutation appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner’s family on 26.03.1985.

8. Mutation Revision thereafter preferred by the respondent no. 6, Dhanpato Devi came to be dismissed for nonprosecution on 06.12.1989. This followed filing of the Title Suit No. 42 of 2003 before the competent Civil Court by Dhanpato Devi which too got dismissed on 09.08.2012 for nonprosecution.

9. The case of the petitioner is that a decade later under ‘the 2009 Act’, B.L.D.R Case No. 30/22 was preferred and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Rohtas vide an order dated 04.11.2022 allowed the said petition directing the Circle Officer, Dinara to do the needful (Annexure- 1 to the writ petition).

10. It is his contention that while doing so, the respondent no. 6, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms moved beyond its jurisdiction inasmuch as the order under Section 4 of ‘the 2009 Act’ can be passed only in case of settlee/allottee and not when there is a dispute between the two private individuals/parties.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6, on the other hand submits that by way of valid piece of gift of deed the land in question was/were transferred to Dhanpato Devi by her mother, Kumda Kuer.

12. He further took this Court an order passed in Title Suit No. 147/1998 that was fought between the lady, Dhanpato Devi as also the son of her sister, Asharfi Devi in which the challenge to the gift in favour of Dhanpato Devi was rejected by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram vide an order dated 15.11.2006. This was challenged in Title Appeal No. 116 of 2006 by Dindayal Singh (son of sister of Dhanpato Devi) which again came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Rohtas