Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Verma vs The State Of Bihar on 16 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18263 of 2022
======================================================
Arun Kumar Verma, Son of Harihar Prasad Verma, resident of Village- Shiv
Nagar, Telihar, Police Station- Beldour, District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
4. The Survey Settlement Officer, Khagaria.
5. The Circle Officer, Beldour, Khagaria.
6. The Circle Officer, Choutham, Khagaria.
7. The Circle Officer, Gogri, Khagaria.
8. The Circle Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria.
9. The Circle Officer, Mansi, Khagaria.
10. The Circle Officer, Khagaria, Khagaria.
11. The Circle Officer, Allouli, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Pravesh Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD)
Date : 16-05-2023
1. The writ application has been filed as a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration regarding
unconstitutionality of clause 3(ii)(Gh) of a Government
Resolution dated 11.11.2014 bearing no. 924, which reads as
follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.18263 of 2022 dt.16-05-2023
"3(ii)(घ) उपररोक्त (क), (ख) एवव (ग) ककी ससस्थिसतययों छरोड
कर सकसकी गगैर मजरूआ ममासलिक भभूसम पर सकसकी कमा दखलि कब्जमा पमायमा
जमातमा हगै तरो adverse possession कक तकर्क करो सस्थिमासपत करनक कक सलिए
दमावमा करर्त्ता करो यह सदखमानमा हरोगमा सक उन्हयोंन क अस्थिवमा उनकक पभूवर्कजयों नक कब
प्रश्नगत भभूसम कक वमासतसवक ममासलिक अस्थिवमा उनकक पभूवर्कजयों करो बकदखलि सकयमा
तमासक adverse possession कक Statutory period ककी गणनमा हकतत
प्रमारम्भ ककी सतसस्थि सनरर्त्तासरत ककी जमा सकक।
सरकमार कक सवरूद्ध adverse possession कक आरमार पर सवत्त्व
(Title) सनरर्त्तारण कक सलिए Limitation Act, 1963 कक Article 112 मम
सनसहत प्रमावरमान कक अनतसमार 30 (तकीस) वररव ककी अवसर पभूरकी हरोनकी चमासहए
परन्तत ममात्र भभूसम पर कब्जमा , चमाहक वह सकतनकी भकी लिम्बकी अवसर ककी हरो , भभू-
रमारकी करो सवसरक असरकमार नहहीं ससृसजत करतमा यसद यह सरकमार दमारमा सदयमा
गयमा grant नहहीं हरो। ऐसकी लिम्बकी अवसर तक भभूसम पर कब्जमा ककवलि सकसकी
अन्य व्यसक्त कक सवरुद्ध उसकक सवसरक असरकमार ककी रकमा करतमा हगै।
सकम प्रमासरकमार करो समय कक सवसभन्न सबन्दतओव कक समापकक सपष , पभूणर्क
एवव सनसश्चित समाक्ष्ययों पर सनभर्कर करनमा हरोगमा। रमाजसव पवसजययों मम प्रसवषकी यसद
सकसकी दमावमाकरर्त्ता कक भभूसम पर रमासरतमा करो प्रकट करतकी हगै तरो उसक सहकी ममानमा
जमा सकतमा हगै। करोई दमावमाकरर्त्ता अपनक दमावमा करो असभलिकख , लिगमान रसकीद,
जमकीनदमारकी सरटनर्क आसद सक इसक सस्थिमासपत कर सकतमा हगै। यसद करोई दमावमाकरर्त्ता
इसक समासबत करतमा हगै , अस्थिर्त्तात उसककी लिगमातमार तकीस वररव सक रमासरतमा प्रममासणत
हरोतकी हगै तरो तकीस वररव ककी अवसर ककी सममासपत कक बमाद , उसकमा सवत्त्व
(title) सचरभरोग (Prescription) कक तहत सनसमर्कत हरोगमा और इस प्रकमार
वह रगैयत ककी पसरभमारमा कक अन्तगर्कत आएगमा।
परन्तत यसद अवगैर दख़लिकमार सतयरोग्य शकणकी कक भभूसमहकीन हह , तरो उनकक
समास्थि सरकमारकी पसरपत्र कक अनतसमार सनरर्त्तासरत सकीममा तक जमकीन ककी बन्दरोबसतकी
Patna High Court CWJC No.18263 of 2022 dt.16-05-2023
कर दकी जमाएगकी एवव तदतपरमान्त जमकीन रगैयतकी ममानकी जमायगकी।"
English translation reads as follows:
"3(ii)(Gh) Leaving aside the situations of 'A', 'B'
and 'C' aforesaid, if someone is found to be in possession
of a gairmajarua owner's land, then to establish the
argument of adverse possession, the claimant will have to
show when he or his forefathers dispossessed the actual
owner from the land in question so as to determine the
date of commencement for computing the statutory period
of adverse possession.
For determining the title of adverse possession
against the government, a period of 30 years should be
completed as per provision contained in Article 112 of the
Limitation Act 1963, but only the possession over the
land, no matter how long the period may be, does not
create the legal right of the land holder, if it is not a grant
given by the government. The possession over the land
for such a long period protects his legal right only
against any other person.
The competent authority has to rely on clear,
complete and definite evidence relating to different points
of time. If the entry in the revenue registers reveals the
holding on the land of a claimant, then it can be
considered correct. Any claimant can establish it with
record, land receipts and zamindari return. If a claimant
proves this, his holding is proved for thirty continuous
years, then after the expiry of the period of thirty years,
his title will be created under prescription and thus he
will come under the definition of raiyat.
But if the illegal occupiers are landless of eligible
Patna High Court CWJC No.18263 of 2022 dt.16-05-2023
category, then according to the government circular land
will be settled with them to the prescribed extent and
thereafter the land will be considered as raiyati tenant
land."
2. The writ petitioner wants issuance of consequential
direction to treat all persons in continued possession of gair
majarua aam land, to be "Raiyat" of the land in question; and
also seeks withdrawal of the restriction imposed on sale and
purchase of this category of land.
3. The brief factual background, as per petitioner's
case, is that there are several farmers who are in continuous
possession and enjoyment of lands for much more than 30
years, even since prior to coming into force of the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act in the Year, 1956. Placing reliance on
Articles 111 and 112 of the Limitation Act, the writ petition
seeks to assert rights arising of continued possession of such
farmers over the pieces of Government lands in their continued
possession for long more than 30 years. It also seeks to assert
the right to have such land mutated in favour of such occupants
who are in continued possession over such a long period of
time.
4. We have examined clause 3(ii)(Gh) of the
Resolution, which as per submission of the petitioner's counsel,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18263 of 2022 dt.16-05-2023
is unconstitutional. This Court would observe that whether a
particular farmer fulfills the requirement for raising the plea of
adverse possession and asserting his right in respect of any land,
is an issue which is to be decided with reference to the
individual's claim based on facts which would be distinct and
unique to every individual. We thus leave it open to the
individuals to raise such a plea in appropriate proceedings
before the appropriate forum.
5. No issue of public interest has been espoused
warranting issuance of a sweeping declaration as has been
sought in the instant writ proceedings in exercise of
discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on certain decisions. In the case of Institute of Law &
Ors. vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) PLJR 32
(SC), we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering huge
loss to the public exchequer as reported by the Audit
Department in allotment of property belonging to the Union
Territory of Chandigarh Administration at throwaway prices.
The Apex Court found that settlement was done without
following the mandatory procedure for allotment of land. The
Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the fact that loss to the public
Patna High Court CWJC No.18263 of 2022 dt.16-05-2023
exchequer could have been avoided, if the land in question had
been settled by way of public auction for eligible persons has
interfered in the matter. We find no such issue being raised in
the instant writ proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be
permitted to place reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
court in the case of Institute of Law (supra) as the facts in the
instant case are totally different and the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court has no application here.
7. Insofar as decision in the case of State of Bihar &
Ors. vs. Harendra Nath Tiwary reported in (2015) 1 PLJR 606,
this Court finds that in that case, the co-ordinate Bench was
dealing with an intra-court appeal arising out of writ
proceedings by individuals, who had challenged cancellation of
their Zamabandi, by raising a plea that Zamabandi was created
in favour of the petitioner in 1946 and that it cannot be
interfered with after seven decades. The competence of the
Collector to cancel the Zamabandi in view of the provisions
contained in the Bihar Land Mutation Act 2011 was also raised
by the petitioner (individual), and not by way of a PIL.
8. The other two decisions, reported in (2005) 4
PLJR 654 (Mangru Singh & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar &
Ors.) and (2017) 1 PLJR 818 (Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18263 of 2022 dt.16-05-2023
State of Bihar & Ors.), relied upon by the petitioner's counsel
are judgments of a hon'ble Single Judge and are not binding
precedents for this Court.
9. It is, however, to be noted that in these two cases
also, petitioners were aggrieved individuals who had
approached this Court.
10. In view of consideration above, we find that
petitioner has not been able to make out any case for proceeding
further in the matter by invoking extraordinary, discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Leaving it open for any individual to assert his/her
grievances in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law,
the writ is dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Madhuresh Prasad, J)
SUMIT/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.05.2023
Transmission Date NA
