Sachchida Nand Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

For the Petitioner : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, Advocates For the State : M/s Din Bandhu Singh, G.P. IX and Sandip Singh, AC to G.P. IX 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.8945 of 2010 (4) dt.15-01-2013 For Respondent Nos. : M/s Aditya Nr. Singh and 4 to 8 Arun Kumar Mishra, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 4 15-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as well as the respondent nos. 4 to 8. None had appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 9 and 10. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Arwal in Boundary Fixation Case No. 20/2008 as contained in Annexure 11 as well as the appellate order dated

13.02.2010 /010.3.2010 passed in Boundary Fixation Appeal No. 2/DM 2009 as contained in Annexure 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land in question has been purchased by him through registered sale deed in the year 1932 and, thereafter, they are continuously in possession of the same. It is submitted that in the revisional survey khatian the name of the petitioner has been entered which would be apparent from Annexure 5, which is a Xerox copy of the khatian. Further submission is that during the Chakbandi proceedings, one Ram Chandra Mahto, father of respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed objection under Section 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.8945 of 2010 (4) dt.15-01-2013 10(2) of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956 with respect to the said land, however, objection was rejected and, thereafter, no appeal etc. was filed by the respondents. Thus, it is contended that there was no doubt regarding the title or possession of the petitioner. However, a dispute arose with regard to the possession of the aforesaid land appertaining to plot no. 204/160 of an area of 1 acre 20 decimals and plot no. 206/160 of an area 47 decimals, total area being 1.67 acres, giving rise to initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure in which aforesaid Ram Charitra Mahto was the first party and Chandra Shekhar Mishra, father of the petitioner was second party. The aforesaid proceeding was decided in favour of the second party, i.e., the father of the petitioner. Relevant passage from the order dated 25.6.1985 passed in 145 proceeding is quoted as under:- “ x x x x

10. From oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, written statement of the 1st party is not proved and the written statement of the 2nd party on point of possession is fully proved and the 2nd party is supported by registered sale deed, Zamindari and state rent receipts canal rent receipts survey and chakbandi parchas and 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.8945 of 2010 (4) dt.15-01-2013 hence 2nd party is declared to be in possession over the disputed land and the second party will continue to be in possession over the disputed till evicted in due course of law.” The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by filing a Criminal Revision No. 899 of 1985 by aforesaid Ramcharitra Mahto and others. However, the same was dismissed after considering the case on merit and by recording a detailed order dated 25.1.1990 as contained in Annexure 9. Thereafter, in view of the fact that the respondents were again disturbing the ridge which demarcates the lands of the respective parties, a request was made under Section 40 of the Act before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Arwal to demarcate by fixing the pillars upon it. Vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2008, as contained in Annexure 11, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Arwal has held that the dispute being with regard to title of the land, that can only be resolved by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Appeal was preferred but it was also dismissed vide order as contained in Annexure 12 taking the similar view of matter. Learned counsel appearing the private respondents has submitted that the dispute, since touches the issues of title is a question of land can only be resolved by a 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.8945 of 2010 (4) dt.15-01-2013 Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Respondents claim that the land in dispute is their ancestral land. However, they have not filed any counter affidavit controverting the allegation made in the writ application. At the time of hearing of this case it has orally been submitted that the order passed by Chakbandi Officer does not disclose that the same has been passed with respect to the plot in dispute itself. However, a certified copy of objection filed on behalf of the respondent before the Chakbandi Officer in the concerned case, which has been rejected vide Annexure 7, i.e., Case No. 140/3221 of 78, has been produced before this Court on behalf of the petitioner which shows that he has filed objection of following description of land :- Khata No. 149 (old) plot no. 160 area 167 decimals, Khata No. 48(new) plot no. 204/160 area 120 decimals and 206 / 160 area 47 decimals. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, it was required by the statutory authority before passing the impugned order to consider the documents mentioned above including the order passed by the Chakbandi Authority and finding should have been recorded in that respect before reaching to conclusion as to whether the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.8945 of 2010 (4) dt.15-01-2013 dispute regarding title exist or not. Thus, in my opinion the orders impugned suffer from the aforesaid error and cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the order dated 30.12.2008 as contained in Annexure 11 as well as the appellate order dated

13.2.2010 / 10.3.2010 as contained in Annexure 12 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate – cum – Collector, Arwal to consider the matter afresh and, thereafter, pass order on its own merit and in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/-