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

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Kiran Lala @ Kiran Bala Lala, widow of late Shyama Kant Lala – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1315 of 2006
Decided on : 13-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V.P. Singh, Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Verma

Headnote:(A) Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 - The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Questions of law regarding: maintainability of summary proceedings under BPLE Act amidst title disputes and validity of government notifications on land acquisition when transfers occurred prior. (Para 5)

(B) Summary proceedings under BPLE Act are unsuitable where substantial questions of title arise; government may not unilaterally evict based on summary proceedings. (Paras 24 and 32)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was initiated by a widow to challenge eviction orders stemming from claims of government land based on past ownership and settlement documents including hukumnama and gift deeds, all underlying significant title disputes. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
No substantive claim of title or legitimate possession upheld due to lack of valid title conveyance and the existence of statutory notifications confirming acquisition by the government. The original titles were never proven against the government’s claims. (Paras 34-36)

Issues: 1) The suitability of summary proceedings under the BPLE Act in light of genuine title disputes. 2) The legality of government notifications issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act affecting land trades prior to their assessment. (Paras 5 and 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the unmaintainability of claims under the BPLE law where valid titles contested occupy the landscape, stressing that summary remedies cannot replace judicial determinations of land ownership. (Para 36)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claiming title over property based on historical records. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. dispute on maintainability of proceeding under bple act. (Para 5 , 6)
3. respondents assert land is government property following notification. (Para 9 , 10 , 19)
4. petitioner's challenge to notification dated 23.11.1979. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. court's finding on the lack of bona fide claim by petitioner. (Para 21 , 35)
6. dismissing of the writ petition due to lack of merits. (Para 36)
7. advising petitioner to seek title declaration in civil court. (Para 38)
8. final orders and conclusion of the court. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

    “(a). For quashing of the Impugned Order dated 01.02.2006 [Annexure-32] passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad [Respondent No.2] passed in BPLE Appeal No.1 of 1989 where by and where under the said Appeal filed by the Petitioner [Appellant] has been dismissed and the Circle Officer, Baghmara [Respondent No.5] has been directed to take necessary action for evicting the alleged encroachment on the said land and has further been pleased to direct that Additional Collector that he will ensure that Mutation and Thoka is cancelled in respect to the land in question and the said land is restored to the Government, only on the basis of a ground taken by the Respondent No.2 that Mutation has been carried out after vesting of the land with Government, but that is error of record.

    (b). For quashing part of the Ex-parte Order dated 19.12.1988 [Annexure-24] passed in BPLE Case No.19 (IX) of 1981-82 passed by Anchal Adhikari, Baghmara -Cum- Collector under BPLE Act [Respondent No.5], with respect to land belonging to the Petitioner appertaining to the Plot No.768, Area: 0.13 decimal, of Mouza: Phularwartand No.31, Thana No.310, Khata No.01, Jamabandi No.269, Police Station: Baghmara, District: Dhanbad.

    (c). For a further writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from acting pursuant to the impugned Order dated 01.02.2006 [Annexure-32] passed in BPLE Appeal No.1 of 1989 by Respondent No.2 and impugned Order-dated 19.12.1988 [Annexure-24] passed in BPLE Case No.19 (ix) of 1981-82 by Respondent No.5 and restraining the Respondents from taking any steps for interfering with the possession of the Petitioner.”

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. Fact of the case as per the Petitioner : -

    a. Plot No.768, Area 0.26 Acres in Khata No.1, Mauza Phularitand No.310, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad was the Bakast Mallik Land [Self Cultivation Land]/Abad Malik/Khas Land of the Ex. Landlord of Nawagarh Raj-Estate, namely Raja Nilkant Narayan Singh (herein after referred to as the Zamindar) and was so recorded in Survey Record of Right [Khatiyan] prepared in the Year 1924-25 [Annexure-1 & 2] in the name Raja Nilkant Narayan Singh.

    b. Kishundeo Singh was the Chaprasi [Guard] of the Zamindar. In the Year 1932, the Zamindar made Oral Raiyati Settlement of the entire Plot No.768, Area 0.26 Acres in Khata No. 1, Mouza Phularitand, Mouza No.310, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad along with Plot No.850, Area 0.36 Acres of the said Mouza, i.e. Total 0.62 Acres, on raiyati terms on issuance of the rent receipt followed by delivery of possession over the said lands in favour of Kishundeo Singh. Kishundeo Singh constructed a small hut in a southern portion of Plot No.768 and started living therein with the members of his family and was also doing cultivation over the rest portion of the said lands. After death of Kishundeo Singh (chaprasi of the zamindar), his grand-daughter Smt. Phul Kumari Devi continued in possession over the said land and became raiyat and continued the cultivation over the said lands.

    c. In order to give legality to said oral settlement, the zamindar issued a Hukumnama No.1762 dated 31.05.1952 [Annexure-3] in favour of Smt. Phul Kumari Devi [Grand-daughter of said Kishundeo Singh-the chaprasi of zamindar] who got her name mutated a

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