Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 7 January, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.933 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11712 of 2019
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Uma Shankar Prasad Resident of Village- Bishunpura
Bazar, P.O.- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gopalganj.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The Circle Officer, Barauli, Gopalganj.
6. Nathuni Gosai Son of Bishwanath Gosai Resident of Village- Bishunpura
Bazar, P.S.- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Khurshid Alam, AAG12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)
Date : 7-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State of Bihar.
Re: I.A. no.1 of 2024
2. The instant application has been filed praying for
condonation of delay of 4 days in filing of the instant appeal.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.933 of 2019 dt.7-01-2025
2/7
having perused the contents of the application, the Court is
satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for condonation
of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the instant appeal is
condoned.
4. I.A. no.1 of 2024 stands allowed.
Re: LPA no. 933 of 2019
5. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 3.7.2019 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to
dismiss CWJC no.11712 of 2019 filed by the appellant.
6. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the land
bearing Khata no. 358, Plot no.364 having an area of 12
decimals and situated in village Bishunpura, Thana no. 264 was
recorded in the khatiyan as gaurmajarua parti kadim. Since the
time of zamindari it was in possession of the father of the
appellant, however, the ex-landlord failed to file return in the
name of his ancestor at the time of vesting of zamindari. A
portion of the land fell under the 'Gandak River, Yojana' and
about 7 decimals out of the 12 decimals land remained in
possession of the father of the appellant. The father of the
appellant being landless filed a petition on 29.3.1993 before the
Circle Officer, Barauli, which was numbered as Settlement Case
no. 31/1993-94 for settlement of the said land in his favour. The
prayer of the father of the appellant was rejected by the Circle
Patna High Court L.P.A No.933 of 2019 dt.7-01-2025
3/7
Officer, Barauli. On an appeal having been preferred against the
said rejection, the same was allowed by the DCLR, Gopalganj
by his order dated 3.9.2012 passed in Bandobasti Appeal no.
157/93-94/24
/94-95/9/2001-02. The respondent no.6 filed BLT
Case no. 256 of 2017 which was allowed by order dated
7.3.2019 passed by the Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal. The
appellant preferred CWJC no.11712 of 2019 against the order
passed by the Tribunal which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge by order dated 3.7.2019, against which the instant
appeal has been preferred.
7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Circle
Officer, Barauli. As per the contents thereof the case of the
private respondent no. 6 is that his ancestors have been coming
in possession of the land in question by virtue of settlement by
the ex-landlord and presently the land of Jamabandi no.1072 is
in their possession and that of Jamabandi no.317 is in
possession of Ambika Gosai. It is further case of the
respondents that on rejection of the claim of the appellant by the
Circle Officer vide order dated 16.11.1993 in Settlement Case
No.31/1993-94, they preferred Bandobasti Appeal no.157/93-94
and 24/94-95, which was allowed by the DCLR, Gopalganj. The
mother of the respondent no.6 moved this Court in CWJC
no.5181/1994 and by order dated 21.2.2013, the matter was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.933 of 2019 dt.7-01-2025
remitted back to the Collector Gopalganj to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law after hearing the parties. The Collector
remitted the matter to the DCLR who passed order dated
3.9.2012, the effect of which was cancellation of the long
standing Jamabandi in the name of the ancestors of respondent
no.6. The responding no.6 preferred BLT Case no. 256 of 2017
in the Bihar Land Tribunal which was allowed by order dated
7.3.2019. CWJC no. 11712 of 2019 preferred by the appellant in
this Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his
order dated 3.7.2019.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the nature of land having been recorded as gairmajarua
parti kadim, Jamabandi created in the name of the ancestor of
respondent no.6, is per se illegal and not sustainable. As such, it
is submitted that the DCLR and the Collector had rightly held in
favour of the appellant and the learned Tribunal has erred in
setting aside the said orders passed in favour of the appellant.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, so far as the case of the
appellant is concerned, he filed a petition only on 29.3.1993 for
settlement of 7 decimals of land before the Circle Officer which
was numbered as Settlement Case Number 31/1993-94. On the
other hand, the case of the respondent no.6 is that his ancestors
Patna High Court L.P.A No.933 of 2019 dt.7-01-2025
have been coming in possession of the land in question by virtue
of settlement by the ex-landlord on vesting of zamindari and
the land of Jamabandi no.1072 is in their possession while the
land of Jamabandi no.317 is in possession of Ambika Gosai.
10. In view of the facts of the case that pursuant to a
petition having been filed in the year 1993, the long standing
Jamabandi in favour of the ancestors of respondent no. 6 was
cancelled by the order of the DCLR passed in the year 2012,
this Court on the point of cancellation of long standing
Jamabandi, in the case of Vijay Kumar Prasad versus State of
Bihar [2017(1) PLJR 818] has held as follows:-
"If a person or even State has some
reason to question the manner in which
Jamabandi was created in 1950 after several
decades then onus would be upon it or such
person to prove that such Jamabandi was
created wrongly. That apart, after such a long
time after creation of Jamabandi and, thereafter,
further mutation after purchase in the year 1977
by the petitioner, it cannot be held in the year
2013 by the Collector that Jamabandi was
created fraudulently as the fraud would have to
be proved before a Court of competent
jurisdiction. Thus, the option before the State of
Bihar would be to file a suit before the
competent court for getting such declaration. It
cannot be done even under Section 9 of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.933 of 2019 dt.7-01-2025
Bihar Mutation Act in the facts and
circumstances of the case. He cannot become a
factotum i.e. a party and the judge and would
decide the matter and annul such Jamabandi
which is standing for several decades. A
reference in this regard is made to a decision of
a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in
C.W.J.C. No. 22052 of 2013 & analogous cases
(Shyam Mohan Shahi & Anr. vs. The State of
Bihar and Ors.) holding that only option open in
such matters to the State would be to file a suit
and get a decree from the Civil Court of
Competent Jurisdiction. The aforesaid judgment
was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in
State of Bihar vs. Harendra Nath Tiwary
reported in 2015(1) PLJR 606."
11. In the opinion of the Court, the Jamabandi with
respect to the land in question having stood in the name of the
ancestor of respondent no.6 since the year 1969, ie: for several
decades should not have been interfered with in such a
proceeding and in view of the judgment in the case of Vijay
Kumar Prasad (supra), the only option open for the State was
to file a suit and get a decree from the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction. If the State, thus is deprived of any right in the
property, there is no question of settlement in favour of a
landless person.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.933 of 2019 dt.7-01-2025
orders passed by the DCLR and affirmed by the Collector was
rightly interfered with by the learned Tribunal and the
application preferred against the same dismissed by the learned
Single Judge.
13. The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal and the
same is dismissed.
( Partha Sarthy, J)
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ: I agree
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
Bibhash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 20.11.2024
Uploading Date 8.1.2025
Transmission Date
