Dharm Das v. Janki Mali and others )
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15253 of 2004 ====================================================== 1. Ram Balak Baitha son of Muneshwar Baitha 2. Mani Baitha, son of Deepa Baitha Both resident of village- Chota Pakahi, P.S. Lakhaura, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. S.D.J.M., Sikrahana, Motihari, East Champaran. 3. L.R.D.C., Sikrahana, Motihari, East Champaran 4. Anchala Adhikari, Ghorasahan, East Champaran, Motihari 5. Dular Rai son of Roshan Rai, resident of village- Pakahi, P.S. Lakhaura, District- East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. U.S. Verama For the Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr. Krishna Kumar, AC to G.P. No.26 For the Respondent no.5 : Mr. D.K.Tandon ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 11 20-06-2013 The grievance of the petitioners in the present proceeding is that though Muneshwar Baitha and Mosomat Mahijani, wife of late Shobha Baitha, father and ancestor of petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively, were granted Parwana in the year 1976 in Land Ceiling Settlement Case No. 26 of 1976 (Dharm Das vs. Janki Mali and others ) with respect to Plot No. 641/2 area 34 decimals, and Plot No. 645/1 area 66 decimals, total being 1 acre, and Plot No. 653/2 area 25 decimals and plot No. 641/2 area- 75 decimals,, total being 1 acre, respectively situate at village Semri, P.S. Ghorasahan, District East Champaran, yet possession over the settled lands have not been given to them.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.15253 of 2004 (11) dt.20-06-2013 2/4 2. It is the case of the petitioners, which has also been admitted by the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries in their counter affidavit that a land ceiling (surplus) case under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ( in short “the Land Ceiling Act”) was started against one Mahanth Dharam Das, the original landholder. The aforesaid Mahanth Dharam Das voluntarily surrendered certain area of land in terms of Section 15A of the Land Ceiling Act and, accordingly, notification was issued in terms of Section 15A of the Land Ceiling Act. Whereafter, the land in question vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances in terms of Section 15(2) of the Land Ceiling Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that in the year 1976, a Land Settlement Case No. 26 of 1976 was started by the D.C.L.R., Sikarahana, Motihari in terms of Section 27 of the Land Ceiling Act. Whereafter 1 acre of land, as stated above, was settled in favour of each of the settlees namely Muneshwar Baitha and Mosomatt Mahijani, the ancestors of the petitioners.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that since Title Suit No. 33 of 1983/ 59 of 1992 was filed by respondent no. 5 before the Civil court, therefore, possession over the lands in question could not be given to the settlees viz Muneshwar Baitha and Mostt. Mahijani or their heirs and legal representatives. 4. Though this matter was heard at length, unfortunately neither the learned counsel for the petitioners nor the learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 have brought relevant facts on record. They are not even aware about the correct and latest position with respect to the lands in question. Patna High Court CWJC No.15253 of 2004 (11) dt.20-06-2013 3/4 5. If the lands in question were subject matter of a land ceiling proceeding initiated against one Mahanth Dharam Das and if the lands in question have been declared surplus and were subsequently acquired through gazette notification issued under Section 15 (1) or 15A of the Land Ceiling Act, then it vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances. Against such vesting of lands, civil suit is completely barred under Section 43 of the Land Ceiling Act. If some one, including respondent no.5 was at all aggrieved with any order passed under the land ceiling Act declaring the lands in question as surplus and acquisition of the same by the State of Bihar, then he could have approached the competent authority/ the State Government under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act for re-opening of the land ceiling (surplus) case for excluding such lands from the ceiling proceeding. Admittedly, that has not been done in the present case. 6. Title Suit filed by respondent no.5 with respect to any land, which has been declared surplus in the land Ceiling proceeding initiated against the original landholder Mahanth Dharam Das was completely misconceived and was not at all maintainable. Any judgment and decree passed by the civil court with respect to such surplus land shall not in any way bind either the State of Bihar or the settlees or their heirs and legal representatives including the petitioners. Admittedly, in the Title Suit No. 33 of 1983 filed by the Respondent No. 5 the State of Bihar and its functionaries were not made party. Either on the basis of the pendency of the aforesaid title suit or on the basis of any judgment and decree passed in the said Title Suit No. 33 of 1983/ 59 of 1992 settlement of lands made in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners cannot be nullified. Patna High Court CWJC No.15253 of 2004 (11) dt.20-06-2013 4/4 7. But these facts are not very clear from the materials available on record. The facts are yet to be examined as to whether the lands in question claimed by the petitioners were finally declared surplus and acquired by the State of Bihar. If the lands in question claimed by the petitioners were finally declared surplus in the land ceiling proceeding initiated against the landholder Mahanth Dharam Das and were acquired by the State of Bihar and settlement was made in favour of Muneshwar Baitha, and Mostt. Mahijani, then possession over the same cannot be denied to their heirs and legal representatives including the petitioners. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
Decision
writ petition is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a proper petition before the “competent authority” under the provisions of The Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 ( in short 2009 Act) within a period of two months. If such a petition is filed by the petitioners then the competent authority i.e., the D.C.L.R. , Sikrahana shall be obliged to examine the claim of the petitioners and shall adjudicate the matters under the provisions of 2009 Act and shall, accordingly, issue appropriate directions after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including respondent no.5, so that dispute regarding lands in question is finally resolved. It is expected that the competent authority shall dispose of the matter at an early date, but not beyond the time prescribed under Section 9 of 2009 Act. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)