Basudev Saw vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1233 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9536 of 2022
     ======================================================

1. Basudev Saw son of Late Ram Kisun Saw

2. Sanjay Saw, son of Late Kamaldeo Saw

3. Rajesh Saw @ Guddu Saw, son of Late Ram Kisun Saw

4. Gorakh Saw, son of Basudev Saw

5. Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Saw, son of Rajesh Saw @ Guddu Saw All are resident of Village-Prayag Bigha, Southern Tola, Ward No. 1, P.O. and P.S.-Dalmiyanagar, District-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dehri, District-Rohtas.

4. The Circle Officer, Dehri, District-Rohtas.

5. Yamuna Singh, son of Late Ganeshi Singh, resident of Village-Prayag Bigha, Southern Tola, Ward No. 1, P.O. and P.S. Dalmiyanagar, District- Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-03-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the

respondent no.5.

The petitioners have filed the instant application for

the following relief(s):

"That, the petitioners crave indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dehri, Rohtas in Land Dispute Resolution Case No.17/2021-22 as contained in Annexure-2 whereby and whereunder learned L.R.D.C. Dehri has declared that the petitioners and respondent no.5 both have equal share of one katha of the land in question and Circle officer Dehri was directed to hand over the possession after measurement by Anchal Amin and it has been further directed that after measurement the remaining land of about 5 ft. may be demarcated as Rasta and further to pass any order/orders, direction/directions, command/ commands directing the respondents to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over R.S.Khata no.654/C.S.Khata no.104, R.S. Plot no.3234/C.S. Plot 1921, area 21 ft. North-South, 85 ft.-East-West, situated in Mauza Ganguli, P.S.-Dehri, Thana no.148, Ward no.1, Nagar Parishad, Dehri Dalmianagar, District-Rohtas, and further to declare the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in Land Dispute Resolution Case no.17/2021-22 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction."

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners that the instant application arises out of an order

dated 20.5.2022 passed in Resolution Case no.17/2021-22 by

the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dehri, Rohtas. Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

order impugned dated 20.5.2022 was passed by the D.C.L.R.,

Dehri, Rohtas on an application filed by the respondent no.5

under section 4(c) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,

2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is submitted that

the respondent no.5 neither being an allottee nor a settlee as

defined under section 2(f) of the Act, the application under

section 4(c) of the Act itself was not maintainable and

consequently the order impugned dated 20.5.2022 (Annexure-2)

is without jurisdiction. Thus, the same be set aside and the writ

application be allowed.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5

submitted that from perusal of the application filed by the

respondent no.5, copy of which has been brought on record as

annexures to the writ application, it would transpire that the

same is not under section 4(c) of the Act and mentioning the

application of respondent no.5 as being under section 4(c) of the

Act in the order impugned dated 20.5.2022, the D.C.L.R., Dehri,

Rohtas has committed an error of record. It is submitted that as

stated in his petition before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, the

respondent no.5 purchased the land in question by a registered

sale deed dated 27.9.2019 and had filed the application before Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas praying for demarcation of his

purchased land. Thus, in effect, the application of the respondent

no.5 was with respect to boundary dispute which comes under

section 4(h) of the Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having gone through the affidavits on record, it transpires that

the petitioners purchased the land in question by a registered

sale deed dated 3548 dated 27.9.2019 and thereafter a

jamabandi was opened in his name. It is for this land that the

petitioners filed the application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri,

Rohtas which was registered as Land Dispute Case no.17/2021-

22 praying therein for demarcation.

From the materials on record, what is not in dispute is

that the application filed by the petitioners as contained in

Annexure-1 to the writ application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri,

Rohtas was under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,

2009.

Section 4 of the Act talks about the jurisdiction and

authority to resolve the disputes and is quoted herein below for

ready reference:

"4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve disputes.-

(1) The competent authority shall have jurisdiction and authority to hear and adjudicate, on an Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

application or complaint or on any application referred to by a prescribed authority or officer, any issue arising out of following types of disputes:-

(a) Unauthorised and unlawful dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him [or under any Act or Policy of the State or Central Government providing for settlement of government land to the persons of any specified category] under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to this Act by issuance of any settlement document/parcha by a competent authority;

(b) Restoration of possession of settled / allotted land in favour of legally entitled settlee/ allottee or his successors/heirs, upon adjudication of unauthorized and unlawful dispossession;

(c) Threatened dispossession of a legally entitled settlee/ allottee;

(d) Any of the matters enumerated in (a), (b) and

(c) above appertaining to raiyati land.

(e) Partition of land holding;

(f) Correction of entry made in the record of rights including map/survey map.

(g) Declaration of the right of a person;

(h) Boundary disputes;

(i) Construction of unauthorized structure; and

(j) Lis pendens transfer.

(2) The competent authority shall not have jurisdiction to review or reopen any finally concluded and adjudicated proceeding under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1. The competent authority shall exercise his authority for resolving Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

the dispute brought before him on the basis of any final order passed by any of the authorities empowered to do so in the Acts contained in Schedule-1 of this Act.

(3) The competent authority shall not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any fresh rights of allottee / settlee or a raiyat which is not yet determined and is required to be determined in accordance with provisions contained in any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1:

Provided that where rights of allottee / settlee or raiyat are already determined under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1, the competent authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain cases appertaining to matters enumerated in sub- section(1).

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2) and (3)herein above, if no provision is made in any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1 for determination of rights of allottee / settlee or raiyat and claimed right is yet to be determined, it shall be open to the competent authority to finally determine such right.

(5) The competent authority, wherever it appears to him that the case instituted before him involves complex question of adjudication of title, he shall close the proceeding and leave it open to parties to seek remedies before the competent Civil Court."

From perusal of section 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

Act, the same clearly talks about settlee/allottee or his

successors/heirs. Allottee or settlee has been defined under

section 2(f) of the Act and it reads as follows:

"2. (f) Allottee or Settlee" connotes the person with whom land has been settled by the competent authority or the person who has acquired raiyati rights over the land,[or under any Act or Policy of the State or Central Government providing for settlement of government land to the persons of any specified category] under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1 to this Act."

Further, for ready reference, Schedule-1 of the Bihar

Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 is reproduced herein

below:

Schedule-1

(1) The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (2) The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (3) The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (4) The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 (5) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (6) The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

Admittedly, the case of the respondent no.5 not being

that the land in question was a Government land, which was Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

settled in his favour under any of the Acts, contained in

Schedule-1 to the Act, there can be no dispute with respect to

the fact that the respondent no.5 is neither an allottee nor a

settlee as defined under the Act.

The next question which would arise is as to whether

the authority under the Act would have jurisdiction to decide the

disputes as mentioned in sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j) with respect

to persons who are not settlee/allottee as in the case of this

petitioner. It is true that sections 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) specifically

mentions the term 'settlee/allottee' while the same is not used in

sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j). At this stage, it would be relevant to

refer to the preamble of the Act for purpose of ascertaining the

intent for which the legislature enacted the Act.

The preamble of the Act is reproduced herein below

for ready reference:

"Preamble:- Whereas, in the State of Bihar, 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 bonafide allotees/settlees, raiyats or occupants;

WHEREAS, 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

Court and which should otherwise have been resolved by the Revenue Authorities, who may be better equipped to deal with such disputes having regard to their continued presence in the field offices and their expertise in Revenue Administration, WHEREAS, in larger public interest it is deemed necessary to provide for effective and speedy mechanism to resolve such disputes which give rise to major turbulence if not addressed immediately and effectively;

AND, WHEREAS, it has been found in analysis of data relating to nature of disputes that they mostly appertain to matters connected with the record of rights, partition of jamabandi, forcible dispossession of allottees / raiyats, boundary disputes etc. and in this context, the administration of the following Acts is involved:

(1) The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, (2) The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, (3) The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, (4) The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, (5) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (6) The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, AND, Whereas, different forums and procedures have been provided for the resolution of disputes under the above referred Acts and it is considered expedient to provide a uniform and common forum, procedure and mechanism which would achieve the Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

objective of effective, efficacious and speedy resolution of disputes."

From reading of the preamble and the Act as a whole,

there remains no doubt that the purpose of the legislature in

enacting the Act was effective and speedy mechanism to resolve

disputes with respect to matters connected with record of rights,

partition of jamabandi, forcible dispossession of

allottees/raiyats, boundary disputes etc. and in this context, the

Acts namely The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, The Bihar

Tenancy Act, 1885, The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead

Tenancy Act, 1947, The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, The

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of

Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and The Bihar Consolidation of

Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 were

involved.

Thus, in the opinion of the Court, what appears from

the reading of the Act as a whole along with its preamble as

quoted herein above and specifically section 3 of the Act, the

purpose of the Act is on resolution of any dispute arising out of

or under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1.

So far as the instant case is concerned, the case of the

respondent no.5, on whose application the proceedings under Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023

the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 commenced in

the Court of the learned D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, was neither an

allottee nor a settlee nor was his case that the land in question

which is the subject matter of the dispute came in his possession

under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1 to the Bihar

Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.

Thus, in view of the facts stated herein above, the

application filed by the respondent no.5 before the D.C.L.R.,

Dehri, Rohtas under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,

2009 was not maintainable and as a result the order dated

20.5.2022 passed in Case no.17/2021-22 by the D.C.L.R.,

Dehri, Rohtas being without jurisdiction, is not sustainable and

is hereby quashed.

The writ application is allowed.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          29.03.2023
Transmission Date