The main legal point established in the judgment is that the settlement made in favor of the vendors of the writ petitioners had already attained finality by the order of the Patna High Court, and there was no jurisdiction for the State authorities to initiate a fresh proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

[Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

I.A. No.444 of 2021

1. The instant Interlocutory Application filed for condoning the delay of 24 days was allowed on 26.03.2021, but while hearing the matter again on 03.08.2021, this Court recalled the order dated 26.03.2021 so far as it relates to condonation of delay on the ground that the delay was condoned without hearing one of the parties, i.e., 16 Anna raiyats, on whose application the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initiated.

2. Thereafter, notice was directed to be issued upon 21 newly added 16 Anna raiyats but the notice could not be served upon the newly added respondents on account of non-availability of their address, except respondent No.6(x). The respondent No.6(x) appeared by filing Vakalatnama but no counter affidavit to the instant interlocutory application has been filed on his behalf.

3. In view thereof, I.A. No. 444 of 2021 is allowed and delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.199 of 2019

4. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3985 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been disposed of in terms of a direction that since the Government has yet to examine the matter and pass appropriate order, as such, the issue is to be examined about the nature of the land as to whether the tank includes its embankment or not by bringing the aforesaid fact into the notice of the State Government.

5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :-

The property involved in this case was under Jamindari of Pakur Raj Estate and Rani Jyotirmoyee Devi. Plot No.1611 comprising total area of 4 Bigha 18 katha 12 dhurs appertaining to Jamabandi No.622 of Mouza Pakur No.128 stands recorded in the last survey settlement records as ‘Pokhar’ (Tank) and the said Raj Estate was entitled to collect rent of the said plot.

It is the further case of the petitioners that large chunk of this area was lying as waste and accordingly the landlady of the Estate decided to settle the property which was put for auction and one Ram Dayal Sao was the highest bidder, and the same was settled on 14.03.1948 in his favour. Thereafter, he paid rent to the Pakur Raj Estate and also to the Government after vesting.

The settlement was bonafide and there was no intention to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the settlement was made much prior coming into force of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 and accordingly the settlement cannot be questioned after a long period.

This property was shown as settled in favour of Ram Dayal Sao in the returns filed by the ex-landlord and the petitioners are claiming the property by way of succession through Ram Dayal Sao.

It is the further case of the petitioners that the impugned proceedings are also barred by the principles of res-judicata in view of the fact that a similar proceeding was brought against the settlement by the Government in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 1954-55, and the claim of the Government was rejected. Thereafter, this order attained finality and petitioners continued to pay rent till 2003-04. Similar case was brought by the Government in 1966-67 in Pakur before the Circle Officer being Rev. Misc. Case No.106 of 1966-67 and ultimately, the same was dropped vide order 07.11.1966 on the basis of aforesaid order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.01 of 1954-55.

Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initiated against the petitioners and a report was prepared by the Circle Officer which was placed before the Deputy Commissioner, basis upon which the settlement made in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled, which is under challenge i