The authority under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act must expeditiously resolve disputes of unlawful dispossession.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

3 14-10-2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is the owner of the land situated in Khata No. 290, Plot No. 1576 having an area of 06 decimal situated in Mauza – Dharahra, Anchal- Silao, District- Nalana. The land was purchased by his father namely Late Sukhi Mahto, S/o Late Gulab Mahto through registered sale deed dated 16.01.1989 from the rightful owner Jugdeo Mahto, Baso Mahto and Nawal Kishore Prasad. The land was mutated in the name of petitioner’s father. After partition, the petitioner was allotted his share in the land having 4 FT & 20 FT in the North side. The land of respondent no. 7 is situated just adjacent towards the North of the petitioner’s land. The petitioner left 4 Ft land in the North side for passage. The private respondent no. 7 has started construction over the said land encroaching a part of the land in question belonging to the petitioner left by him for passage. Referring to Section 4 (a) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act , 2009 (for short “Disputes Resolution Act”) learned counsel submits that the competent authority i.e. D.C.L.R. has the jurisdiction and authority to resolve disputes regarding unauthorized and unlawful dispossession from the raiyati land.

2. The encroachment upon the land of the petitioner amounts to his unlawful dispossession for which the petitioner filed an application before the D.C.L.R., Rajgrih under the provisions of the Disputes Resolution Act, which was registered as Land Dispute Case No. 60 / 2022-23. The D.C.L.R. by its order dated 13.06.2023 directed the Circle Officer, Silao, Nalanda to do measurement of the land and submit report. The enquiry report was submitted by the Anchal Amin and the Circle Officer before the D.C.L.R. with finding that 133 Sq Ft of the petitioner’s land has been encroached by the respondent no. 7 but the D.C.L.R., Rajgrih is sitting tight over the matter and is not passing the final order.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per Section

4(5) of the Disputes Resolution Act if it appears to the competent authority that the case instituted before him involves complex question of adjudication of title, he shall close the proceeding and leave it open to the parties to seek remedies before the competent civil court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material on record. From perusal of the order passed by the D.C.L.R. in proceeding initiated under the Disputes Resolution Act it appears that the D.C.L.R. registered the case and directed for measurement of the disputed land and the Circle Officer, Silao, Nalanda after measurement submitted its report. It appears that after submission of report the D.C.L.R. has not proceeded further and no final order has been passed in Land Dispute Case No. 60 of 2022-23.

5. As per preamble of the Disputes Resolution Act disputes relating to record of rights, boundaries, entries in revenue records, unlawful occupation of raiyati land and forcible dispossession of allottees and settlees of public land generate problems and cause unnecessary harassment to bona fide allotees / settlees, raiyats or occupants. Such disputes with respect to raiyati land or public land allotted in favour of different classes of allottees are unnecessarily occupying major space of Civil Courts and Hon’ble High Court and which should otherwise have been resloved by the revenue authorities, who may be better equipeed to deal with such disputes having regard to their continued presence in the field offices and their expertise in revenue administration. Accordingly, in the larger public interest it was deemed necessary to provide for effective and speedy mechanism to resolve such disputes which give rise to major t