Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3798
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rajesh Kumar Verma, J
Pramod Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC 15512 / 2022
Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey
A sale deed executed by a vendor without title is void, and a petitioner lacking standing cannot challenge a Tribunal's order without being a party to the original proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Tenancy Act - Section 48D - Writ petition challenging the order of the Bihar Land Tribunal allowing the application for acquisition of Kaimi rights - The petitioner claimed rights based on a sale deed from a vendor who had no title to the land, as it was gifted to another party - The court found the sale deed void and the petitioner's claims unmaintainable. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction and Standing - The petitioner lacked standing to appeal as he was not a party in the original proceedings and failed to include the landlady as a necessary party - The court emphasized the importance of proper party representation in land disputes. (Paras 5, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the Bihar Land Tribunal's order allowing Respondent Nos. 6 & 7's application for Kaimi rights over land originally owned by Smt. Savitri Devi, which was gifted to Smt. Premlata Devi. The petitioner claimed rights based on a sale deed from a vendor who had no title.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deed was void as the vendor had no right to the property, and the petitioner had no standing to challenge the order as he was not a party to the original proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had the right to challenge the Tribunal's order and the validity of the sale deed executed by a vendor without title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sale deed was void due to the vendor's lack of title and emphasized that the petitioner could not challenge the Tribunal's order without being a party to the original proceedings.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 05-10-2024 Heard Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as well as Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, learned SC-19 for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
“(A) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure-4) passed by Member (Administrative) the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna whereby and whereunder he was pleased to allow the B.L.T. Case No. 31 of 2022.
(B) Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question originally belonged to Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Shri Chandranand Prasad under here Foutali Yadav, the grandfather of the petitioner and father of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 was under Raiyati. The revisional survey in the area was started in the year 1952 and it becomes final in the year 1958. The Foutali Yadav continued in Sikmi possession right prior to year 1952 till his death in the year 1970. He has acquired occupancy interest Foutali Yadav died leaving behind three sons namely Ramanand Yadav and Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Ramanand Yadav died leaving behind his son namely Pramod Yadav (petitioner). The petitioner belonged to branch of Late Ramanand Yadav and Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 were belonged to the branch of Late Foutali Yadav and from perusal of Khatiyan it appears that the lands in question and some other lands stand recorded in the name of Foutali Yadav and Rasik Lal Yadav as Sikmidar bearing Sikmi Khata No. 288 and the Malki Khatiyan stands in the name of Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Sri Chandranan Prasad. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent nos. 6 & 7 filed an application on affidavit before the Anchal Adhikari, Purnia East Anchal within the District of Purnia ( respondent no. 4) for acquisition of Kaimi right in the land in question against the land lady Smt. Premlata Devi (respondent no. 8). On the application of respondent nos. 6 & 7, Case No. 01 of 2018-19 was registered under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). By order dated 10.10.2018 the respondent no. 4 allowed the application of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 under Section 48D of the Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnia ( Respondent No. 3) against the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by respondent no. 4. Appeal Case No. 06 of 2019-20 was registered. The appellate authority (respondent no. 3) held that the previous case no. 02 of 2007-08 which was filed jointly by the present petitioner and respondent nos. 6 & 7 was rejected on the ground that the recorded Sikmidar had died and therefore the Simki right was lost. The Case No. 87 of 2009-10 and 88 of 2009-10 under Section 48E of the Act were dismissed for default since the concerned petitioner did not take any interest. It was also found and held that the Sikmidar Foutali Yadav had three sons and heirs but the Case No. 01 of 2018-19 was filed only on behalf of two respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Therefore, the case under Section 48D of the Act suffered from defect of party. In the light of the above discussions and finding the order dated 10.10.2018 has been remanded with a direction to hear the parties to the appeal order dated 29.07.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Member (Administrative), the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna whereby and whereunder he was pleased to allow the BLT Case No. 31 of 2022. The petitioner had purchased the land in question bearing Plot No. 1691 area 28 decimals, Plot No. 1692 area 07 decimals, Plot No. 1693 area 10 decimals, Plot No. 1694 area 0.5 decimals total area 50 decimals under Khata No. 372 from Milind Ki
