Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11832 of 2005 Ram Bilash Singh, son of Late Chandar Singh, resident of Village- Naya Goan, Police Station-Naya Gaon, District-Begusarai Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai 3. The Anchaladhikari, Matihani, District-Begusarai 4. Santosh Sharma, son of Late Sadan Singh Sharma, resident of Village- Harakh, Kothi, Police Station-Begusarai, District- Begusarai .... .... Respondents Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi Mr. Devendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag3) Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh-1 Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR C.A.V. ORDER -------------------- 6 19-06-2013 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of an order dated 17.05.2005 passed by the Circle Officer, Matihani in Case no.01/2004-05 and also for direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the physical cultivating possession of the petitioner over the lands in question. The details of the lands in dispute are as follows: 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 2 / 8 Mauza Khata Khasra Area B. K. Dh Matihani 1415 660 0 - 8- 16 Thana No.205 2224 4 -16 - 19 2423 1- 15 -04 Total 7 -0 - 19
Decision
As per the writ petition, the petitioner in the year 1982 had filed an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the “B.T.Act”) against one Sadan Singh Sharma for declaring him Bataidar over the lands in question. The said application was registered as B.T.Case no.2/1982-83 and finally the learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms vide its order dated 18.02.1985 declared the petitioner as Bataidar. Thereafter, mutation was also allowed in favour of the petitioner. As per petitioner, earlier a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms( Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act,1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Ceiling Act”) was initiated vide Ceiling Case No.6/1973-74 against one Late Bishwanath Singh Sharma, husband of Dineshwari Singh Sharma, which was subsequently bifurcated into six ceiling cases i.e. Ceiling Case No.257/8 of 1974-75 ( Smt. Sita Devi wife of Harinath Singh Sharma), Ceiling Case No.258/6 of 1974- 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 3 / 8 75(Madan Singh Sharma), Ceiling Case No.261/4 of 1974-75( Balinath Singh Sharma), Ceiling Case No.262/7 of 1974-75( Anil Kumar Sharma son of Late Raghunath Singh Sharma) and Ceiling Case No.263 of 1974-75 ( Smt. Saraswati Devi wife of Shivnath Singh Sharma). However, except in Ceiling Case No.6 of 1973- 74, no lands were declared surplus. In Ceiling Case No.6/1973-74, altogether 170 acres and odd lands were declared surplus and subsequently District Gazette Notification no.3 was published on 30.08.1991 under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act. It has further been pleaded that lands appertaining to Khata no.1415, Khasra no.660 of Mauza Matihani having an area of 20.88 acres were included in the list of surplus lands, whereas Khasra No.660 was having total lands of about 85 Bighas. The petitioner has further pleaded that besides him, five others , namely, Ramjee Singh, Sikandar Singh, Ram Briksh Singh, Ugo Singh and Awadh Singh were declared Bataidars by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai in B.T.Case no.37 / 1980-81( Ramjee Singh Vs. Smt. Dineshwari Singh Sharma and Ors), B.T.Case No.38/1980- 81(Sikandar Singh Vs. Smt. Dineshwari Singh Sharma & Ors.), B.T.Case No.11/1980-81 ( Ram Briksha Singh Vs. Smt. Dineshwari Singh Sharma & Ors.), B.T. Case No.36/1980-81 (Ugo Singh @ Ugandeo Singh Vs. Smt. Dineshwari Singh Sharma 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 4 / 8 & Ors.) and B.T.Case No.35/1980-81( Awadh Singh Vs. Smt. Dineshwari Singh Sharma and Ors.) by order dated 16.10.1981(B.T. Case nos. 35,36,37 and 38 of 1980-81) and by order dated 18.02.1985 in B.T.Case No.11/1980-81. It has further been pleaded that except the petitioner, all other five persons, in whose favour Bataidari Cases, as mentioned above, were allowed, filed five separate applications under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act after noticing that notification under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act was issued. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Matihani on the direction of the Additional Collector, Ceiling, Begusarai filed six appeals in the court of the learned Collector, Begusarai for setting aside the order passed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai in the aforesaid Bataidari Cases, which were allowed under Section 48 (E) of the B.T.Act. Against the order passed in Bataidari Case in favour of the petitioner, Misc. Case No. 16 of 1996 was filed and finally by order dated 13.12.1996 the Collector, Begusarai set aside the order passed by the learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai in Bataidari Case nos. 37 of 1980-81, 38 of 1980-81, 11 of 1981-82 ( which was allowed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms in favour of the petitioner), B.T.Case no. 86 of 1980-81, B.T.Case no.02 of 1982-83 and B.T.Case no.35 of 1980-81. It has been admitted by the petitioner 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 5 / 8 in the present writ petition that against the order dated 23.12.1996 passed by the Collector, Begusarai, a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No.8682 of 1996 was filed by all the aggrieved persons including the petitioner. The said writ petition was allowed on 22.07.1997. While allowing the writ petition, this Court directed the authority concerned to decide the claims of the parties under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner in the present writ petition has claimed that he had never filed any application under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act since in the Ceiling Case of Sadan Singh Sharma, no land was declared surplus. However, on 25.05.2004, the petitioner filed an application under Section 48D of the B.T.Act before the Circle Officer , Matihani for acquisition of raiyati right by occupancy under raiyat and prayed for fixing rent over the land in question. However, the Circle Officer by its order dated 17.05.2005 instead of deciding the case of the petitioner has illegally directed him to pursue his case in a proceeding under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. Sri Siyaram Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the land in question was not declared surplus, the learned Circle Officer was required to decide the case of the petitioner, which was filed under Section 48D of the B.T.Act. He 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 6 / 8 has further argued that there was no reason for directing the petitioner to pursue the proceeding under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act. According to Sri Shahi, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. In this case, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent/State. Besides raising other plea, it has also been pleaded that against the order impugned, the petitioner was having statutory remedy of appeal and revision and, as such, writ petition is fit to be rejected. Sri R.K.Priyadarshi, learned A.C. to A.A.G. No.1, while opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner has argued that after the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.8682 of 1996 on 22.07.1997, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the petitioner was not at all entitled to file an application under Section 48 D of the B.T.Act. This Court in the writ petition, in which the petitioner was petitioner no.5, had already directed the authority concerned to decide the claims of the parties under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act and, as such, the petitioner was not entitled to file a petition under Section 48 D of the B.T.Act. According to him, the learned Circle Officer has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 17.05.2005, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 7 / 8 Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that after the order passed by the learned Collector in Misc. Case No. 16 of 1996, whereby the order passed in B.T.Case No.11/1981-82 in favour of the petitioner along with the order passed in other B.T.Cases were quashed, the petitioner joined other Bataidars and filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No.8682 of 1996. In the said writ petition, as admitted by the petitioner, he was petitioner no.5. The said writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court on 22.07.1997 by concluding that “Therefore, having regard to the facts noticed above, I quash that part of the impugned order whereby the orders were passed by the D.C.L.R. under Section 48 of the B.T.Act. The authorities shall, therefore, now proceed to decide the claim of the parties under Section 22 of the Act in accordance with the law.” Once in a writ petition, in which the petitioner was one of the petitioners, a direction was given by this Court to decide the claim of the parties under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act, the petitioner was required either to proceed by way of filing an application under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act or in case of any error in the order of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.8682 of 1996, the petitioner was entitled to approach this Court to modify the order. 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.11832 of 2005 (6) dt.19-06-2013 8 / 8 However, from the facts, which has been gathered from the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner never took any such step, but instead after lapse of several years from the date of order dated 22.07.1997, in the year 2004 he filed a case under Section 48D of the B.T.Act, which was registered as Case No.01/2004-05. The said case was finally rejected by the Circle Officer on 17.05.2005, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. Accordingly without getting the order dated 22.07.1997 passed in C.W.J.C.No.8682 of 1997 clarified/modified , the petitioner was not at all entitled to approach the Circle Officer by filing a fresh case under Section 48D of the B.T.Act. Moreover, the order dated 22.07.1997 passed in C.W.J.C.No.8682 of 1996 has already taken its finality and, as such, the petitioner was not entitled to approach this Court against the order passed by the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No.01/2004-05. The petitioner even in the B.T.Act was having alternative remedy. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition has got no merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)