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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA, J.
CWJC No.19886 of 2016
(16.7.2024)
Bhola Das ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Malendu.
For the Respondents: Mr. Subhash Chandra Yadav-Gp-15.

Headnote:

Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 4(h) – Cancellation of Jamabandi – If State, for any reason, wants to challenge authority or title of any person based on settlement made by ex-landlord then only option left to State is to approach civil court for cancellation of Jamabandi – In present case, land was settled by ex-landlord in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners – After vesting of Zamindari, return of Jamabandi was filed and thereafter rent was accepted by State and State issued rent receipt and only when land was acquired for compensation, Jamabandi was enquired into by an illegal order and in most arbitrary way Jamabandi was cancelled and same order was affirmed by Collector in same casual manner – Impugned order set aside – State given liberty file title suit for cancellation of same – Writ application allowed. (Paras 7 and 8)

Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Following relief(s) have been prayed for in paragraph No. 1 of the writ application:—

(i) Quashing/setting aside the order dated 15.10.16 (Annexure-11) issued by the Respondent No. 4 (Addl. Collector) by which the Jamabandi No. 689 running in the name of the mother of the petitioner namely Late Munari Devi has been cancelled again vide Jamabandi Cancellation Misc. Case No. 17 of 2015-16.

(ii) Quashing/setting aside the order of settlement (Annexure-12 series) issued by the Respondent No. 7 in favour of Respondent No. 8 (Co-operative Society) which was issued without hearing the petitioner.

(iii) Holding and declaring that the whole proceedings initiated before the learned Addl. Collector (Respondent No. 4) for cancellation of Jamabandi vide order dated 15.10.16 (Annexure-11) passed by him is not only without jurisdiction but also a purposeful attempt to oust the petitioner from his khatiyani raiyati lands/tanks at the instance of some anti-social villagers.

(iv) Holding and declaring that the Respondents authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi of the petitioner over the lands/tank in question after several decades, and to send the private tank of the petitioner in Govt. Sairat, specially without hearing the petitioner whose raiyati right has already been recognized by the State of Bihar as well as by the consolidation authority long ago.

(v) Holding and declaring that the tank in question is the personal tank of the petitioner and other persons/authorities has no concern at all, and no authority under any Act is empowered to send the tank in question in Govt. Sairat.

(vi) Granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled to.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was earlier recorded in C.S. Khatian as Gair Majarua Malik Land under the then ex-landlord Suchindra Narayan Singh and others having C.S. Plot No. 361, area 1 acre 18 decimals and the nature of land was recorded as Garha (ditch). The said ex-landlord settled the land in question in favour of mother of the petitioner namely Late Munari Devi in the year 1940 after finding her in complete possession over the land in question. After the settlement, through Hukumnama dated 20.12.1940, the mother of the petitioner continued to pay lagan to the ex-landlord and acquired status of a raiyat as the Jamabandi No. 406 was opened in her name in the serista of exlandlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after vesting of Zamindari, land in question continued in possession of petitioner’s mother and Jamabandi No. 689 was created in her name in the revenue records of State of Bihar. Subsequently, in the consolidation khatiyan, the mother of the petitioner was also recognized as raiyat by the consolidation authorities. After death of the mother, the petitioner came in possession over the land in question and continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the year 2012, the petitioner came to know that respondent authorities are taking steps to send the lands of the petitioner into government sairats, then the petitioner submitted an application on 17.07.2012 before the District Fishery Officer, Banka (respondent No. 7) to release his land from government Sairat whereafter the Respondent No. 7 sought report from the Circle Officer (Respondent No.6) regarding status of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in response to letter received from Respondent No. 6, the authorities vide letter dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-7) reported that the land in question is a raiyati land and up-to-date rent receipt has been issued to the petitioner. Despite the report (Annexure-7), a miscellaneous case vide Misc. Case No. 2 of 2012 was registered by the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 6) at the instance of co-villagers and

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