Patna High Court
Anil Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8082 of 2020
======================================================
Anil Prasad Yadav (male), aged about 41 years, Son of Rajendra Prasad
Yadav, resident of Village - Murkatawa, P.O. Banshgopal, Awaman, Rajauli,
District-Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Rajaoili,
Nawadah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, AC to AAG 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-01-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, learned Assistant
Counsel to Additional Advocate General 11 for the State.
3. The petitioner has moved the Court for the
following reliefs:
"That this is an application for issuance of
directions to the Respondents for immediate
Patna High Court CWJC No.8082 of 2020 dt.12-01-2021
stoppage of construction of rural road over the
ancestral land of the petitioner in the Mukhya
Mantri Gram Sampark Yojna-(MMGSY) situated in
the village Murkatawa, PO Banshgopal, Awaman,
Rajauli, District-Nawadah."
4. Only when the Court directed the petitioner to
bring on record all documents in support of his claim to the land
in question, certain documents and copies of orders have been
brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner. One of the main documents is a so-
called order dated 15.11.1982 passed in Suit No. 3907 of 1976
under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter
referred to as the "BT Act") by the Revenue Officer, Nawada.
5. On this, the State has taken a categorical stand
that the said document is a forged document. The petitioner in
his rejoinder, with regard to such stand that the document is
fabricated, has simply stated that the authorities cannot change
their stand. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated
that mutation has been done and rent receipts have been issued
to the petitioner. It was submitted that once the authorities have
mutated the land in question in favour of the petitioner/his
ancestors and rent receipts have been granted, the only recourse
left to the State authorities is to file a suit for any change or
Patna High Court CWJC No.8082 of 2020 dt.12-01-2021
cancellation of such mutation.
6. On a direct query of the Court to learned counsel
for the petitioner as to how, when the very basis of his claim,
viz. order dated 15.11.1982, has been disputed by the authorities
as being a forged document, any subsequent order based on the
same would create any right in favour of the petitioner as law is
well-settled that fraud vitiates all action taken based on it,
learned counsel was unable to meet the query.
7. In the present case, there is no specific denial by
the petitioner that the order dated 15.11.1982 is not fabricated.
Thus, when the authorities on oath in an affidavit have taken this
categorical stand about the document being fabricated, meaning
thereby that no such order was ever passed, clearly it would
become doubtful, implying that fraud may have been
committed. As the very basis of claim over the land in question
by the petitioner is the order dated 15.11.1982 passed in Suit
No. 3907 of 1976 under Section 106 of the BT Act, has been
found to be a fabricated document by the authorities, with no
specific denial in rejoinder by the petitioner, along with the
submission of learned counsel for the State, upon instructions,
that there is no trace of any such order in the official records, the
writ petition clearly is without merit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8082 of 2020 dt.12-01-2021
8. The order dated 15.11.1982 being the sole basis of
claim by the petitioner to the ownership of the land in question,
the Court, in its extraordinary and prerogative writ jurisdiction,
is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. If
at all the petitioner is convinced that his claim is bona fide and
his documents are genuine, the only recourse before him is to
move before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for a
declaration that the said documents are genuine.
9. For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
10. The Court would indicate that it has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and
observations made herein are only for the purpose of this writ
petition. However, it is also noted that despite a categorical
statement in the supplementary counter affidavit that the order
dated 15.11.1982 is fabricated, there has been no denial of the
same by the petitioner in his rejoinder, which is a major reason
why this Court has been persuaded not to interfere in the matter
as a direct allegation of fraud stands unrebutted by the
petitioner.
11. It is clarified that it shall be open to the petitioner
to move before the appropriate forum, however not under
Patna High Court CWJC No.8082 of 2020 dt.12-01-2021
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with regard to getting
his right and title, if any, declared over the land in question, in
accordance with law, which shall be considered on its own
merits without being prejudiced by the present order.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
