The decree of the civil court is binding on revenue authorities, and refusal to adhere to it constitutes illegal administrative action.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed the applicant to intervene in the instant Writ application as a party respondent no.7 as he is a necessary party.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner and official Respondents does not have any serious objection. Looking to averments made in the instant interlocutory application, this application is allowed and as such the applicant namely Adalat Rajak is made as party Respondent no.7.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8397 stands disposed of. With consent of the parties, the main application was heard.

W.P. (C) No. 1794 of 2024

5. The instant Writ application has preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 passed in case no. 01/23-24 (Annexure-6) by the 5th Respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner for issuance of rent receipt in respect to the land in question has been rejected on the erroneous ground and extraneous consideration which is contrary to the findings with respect to land in question in Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 wherein the suit has been decreed in favour of the predecessor of Petitioner by the Competent Civil Court.Petitioner further prays for issuance for a direction upon the concerned Respondent for issuance of rent receipt in respect to the land in question forthwith.

6. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the land in question relates to Khata No. 145 appertaining to Khewat no.26 of village Majurdubhi, Thana-Chandankiyari, wherein total area 52.55 Acres are ancestral property of the Petitioner which was obtained by his grandmother namely Smt. Satadal Chandra by way of permanent settlement through registered deed of indenture dated 22.09.1951.After knowing the fact that the State of Bihar made settlement of land in question in favour of 13 persons; then the grandmother of the petitioner preferred Title Suit No. 6 of 1971 against the State of Bihar & others. The Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 was decreed in favour of Petitioner’s grandmother vide Judgment dated 28.02.1973 wherein the learned Court held that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against the defendant no.1 (State of Bihar) and decreed ex-parte without cost so far defendants no. 2 to 14 are concerned.Learned Trial Court held that the title of Plaintiff no.1 to the suit land described in Schedule "A" is hereby declared and her possession over the same is confirmed. Defendants are also permanently injuncted from taking possession over the schedule "B" land.Accordingly, decree was prepared and signed on 06.03.1973. Rent for the aforesaid plot was thereafter being paid regularly by father of the Petitioner which is evident vide rent receipt dated 17.08.2014. But thereafter, the Respondent authorities stopped issuing the rent receipt. Pursuant thereto;father of the petitioner namely Pradip Chandra vide letter dated 11.07.2017 made request to the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari for acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt and after the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation before the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari, Bokaro vide his letter dated 03.02.23 for issuance of rent receipt and mutation of his name in revenue record.Since no decision was taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. W.P. (C) No. 1413/2023 before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the Petitioner to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the 5th Respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed fresh representation dated 18.05.23,