Ram Chandra Rajak v. The State of Bihar

Dev Nandan Rajak, aged about 50 years, Male Son of Late Ramautar Rajak. All Resident of Village- Rajaura, Bhitta, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai. Versus ... ... Appellant/s

The State of Bihar The Commissioner, Munger. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. The District Land Reforms Collector, Begusarai. The Circle Officer, Barauni, Begusarai. The Circle Karamchari, Barauni, Begusarai. The Circle Amin, Barauni, Begusarai. Shiv Nandan Rajak, aged about 57 years, Male Son of Late Ramautar Rajak Resident of Village- Rajaura, Bhitta, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai. ………… Writ Respondents/ Respondent 1st Set

Mahesh Kumar Prasad Narayan Singh, aged about 55 years, Male Son of Late Shiv Charan Narain Singh Resident of Village- Rajaura (Rajwara), P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai. Writ petitioner/ Respondent 2nd Set

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH Mr. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate Mr. : : ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA) 5 26-04-2022 The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge. Operative part thereof Patna High Court L.P.A No.67 of 2020(5) dt.26-04-2022 reads as under: “11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically stated that the father of the petitioner sold 12 dhurs of land in question in favour of Ramautar Rajak (father of respondent nos.8, 11, 12) and the husband of respondent no. 9 and the remaining land of the aforesaid plots remained in possession of the father of the petitioner. Neither the State respondent nor respondent nos. 8 to 12 disputed this fact that Ramautar Rajak (father of respondent nos. 8, 11 and 12) purchased 12 dhurs of land and they constructed their house thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that in order to grab the remaining land of the petitioner, the respondents concerned filed petition before the Circle Officer (respondent no. 5) for issuance of purcha with regard to remaining lands of plot no.839, 840 and 841 of khata no. 24. The Circle Officer called for a report from the Circle Inspector and the Revenue Clerk, who wrongly reported that respondent nos. 8 to 12 are in possession of the land but no notice was issued to the petitioner. The respondents have not denied this fact that any notice was issued to the petitioner in whose name the record ofright is standing.

Rules 4 and 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act prescribed that on receipt of any of the application mentioned in rule 3, the Collector shall start proceedings under the relevant section to which the applications relate and deal with them in the manner provided for land revenue cases. The Collector shall either himself make local enquiry or have such enquiry made by any responsible officer not below the rank of a Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector and satisfy himself as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents of such applications. The enquiring officer shall issue a notice in Form F to all the interested parties intimating the date on which the inquiry shall be made and Patna High Court L.P.A No.67 of 2020(5) dt.26-04-2022 directing parties to produce all the evidence in their possession in support of or against the application, but it appears that the Circle Officer after having received the application of respondent nos.8 to 12 did not hold any enquiry in accordance with the rules prescribed thereunder and simply called for a report from the Circle Inspector and the Revenue Clerk, who reported that respondent nos.8 to 12 are in possession of the land. No notice was ever issued to the petitioner, who is admittedly recorded tenant of the lands. Notice and enquiry are made as safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of wide power conferred to the Collector under the Act and if it is found that the notice in the prescribed form or in any form to the landlord is not issued nor any enquiry as envisaged under the Rules has been held and a purcha is issued in favour of the applicant, such issuance of purcha is illegal. Thus, I find that the purcha issued in favour of respondent no.8 to 12 and Jamabandi created on the basis of issuance of such purcha are illegal and fit to be set aside.