Letters Patent Appeal No. 160 of 2013 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.160 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Md. Aslam S/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 2. Md. Salauddin S/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 3. Md. Zamshed S/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 4. Md. Zaribul S/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 5. Most. Rabiza D/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 6. Gulesha Khatoon D/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 7. Bhojani Khatoon @ Bhojya Khatoon D/O Late Md. Rashid Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 8. Md. Mazhrul S/O Late Md. Tasir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 9. Md. Yasin S/O Late Md. Tasir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 10. Md. Alimuddin S/O Late Md. Tasir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 11. Md. Nazamuddin S/O Late Md. Tasir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 12. Lakho Khatoon D/O Late Md. Tasir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 13. Most. Putli Khatoon @ Puttli Khatoon Widow Of Late Md. Tasir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 14. Md. Harun S/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 15. Md. Faroque S/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 16. Md. Manan S/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 17. Nazera Khatoon D/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 18. Nargina Khatoon D/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 19. Margina Khatoon D/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. 20. Gulchera Khatoon D/O Late Kafir Resident Of Village- Saptara Fatehpur, P.O- Telhta, P.S- Balrampur, District- Katihar. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Shamim S/O Late Mofiz Resident Of Village Chillhapara, P.O- Telta, P.S- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar. 2. Zallu S/O Late Yusuf Resident Of Village Chillhapara, P.O- Telta, P.S- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar. 3. Md. Quaim S/O Late Yasin Resident Of Village Chillhapara, P.O- Telta, 2 Patna High Court LPA No.160 of 2013 (6) dt.26-11-2013 2 / 6 P.S- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar. 4. Wahab S/O Late Yasin Resident Of Village Chillhapara, P.O- Telta, P.S- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar. 5. Md. Zafar S/O Late Latif Resident Of Village Chillhapara, P.O- Telta, P.S- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar. 6. Garibul S/O Late Latif @ Mehta Ali Resident Of Village Chillhapara, P.O- Telta, P.S- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar. 7. The State Of Bihar Through The Divisional Commission, Purnia. 8. The Divisional Commission, Purnia. 9. The Collector, Katihar. 10. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barsoi, Katihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Advocate. For Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Anis Akhtar, Advocate. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Rana Bhupendra Nr. Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 6 26-11-2013 We have heard counsel for the Appellants, State and for the private respondents. The present Appeal assails order dated 29.11.2012 disposing C.W.J.C. No. 20649 of 2012 preferred by the Appellants with the observation that they may approach the Court of competent civil jurisdiction for resolution of the dispute. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the name of their predecessor Akbar Ali was recorded in the survey khatiyan. After vesting in the State of Bihar, Akbar Ali became the Kaimi raiyat and ground rent also fixed under Section 109 of the B.T. Act. After his death, the Appellants as 3
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court LPA No.160 of 2013 (6) dt.26-11-2013 3 / 6 the legal heirs continued to be in possession till 2009. The private respondents never objected to the same. A Title Suit No. 3291 of 1964 was filed by Latifur Rahman, predecessor of the private respondents. On 16.1.1970, a fabricated compromise deed was filed in the suit. The suit was dismissed on 8.7.1972. No Appeal was filed against the same by Latifur Rahman. Thereafter Chakbandi Case No. 9/79-80 was filed by Latifur Rahman. Against the same, Appeal Case No. 221 of 1980-81 was filed. In the Chakbandi case orders were passed in favour of the private respondents. This was behind the back of the predecessor of the Appellants. The order passed in title suit was not placed before the Chakbandi authorities. The private respondents have forcefully dispossessed the Appellants. It was next contended that once ground rent was assessed after appropriate orders and entries in the survey khatiyan made in the name of Akbar Ali, even if erroneous entry had been made, as was sought to be contended, corrections, if any, could be made only after proper notice and hearing. Any unilateral correction is violative of the principles of natural justice making the order void ab initio thereby restoring the entry of Akbar Ali in the survey khatiyan and the consequent assessment of ground rent in his name. Learned Senior counsel for the private 4 Patna High Court LPA No.160 of 2013 (6) dt.26-11-2013 4 / 6 respondents submitted that Title Suit No. 3291 of 1964 and Title Suit No. 3292 of 1964 filed by the erstwhile Zamindar in the Court of the Munsif at Katihar. The compromise petition filed therein was signed by the predecessor of the Appellants Akbar Ali that he had nothing to do with the lands. The suit came to be dismissed not on merit but for non prosecution. Once Akbar Ali had signed the compromise petition, the dismissal of the suit for non prosecution, will not affect the binding effect of the compromise signed by Akbar Ali and it is not open for his predecessors to question the document after his demise. In the proceedings before the Chakbandi Court, Akbar Ali had appeared as an intervenor which is mentioned in the Appellate order. The Appellate order rightly holds that the authority under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act is not competent to sit in judgment over an order of a Chakbandi Court. We have considered the submissions. The Appellate authority holds that while the claim of the Appellants is based on the Revisional Survey Khatiyan, the private respondents claim through entries in the Cadastral Survey Khatiyan. There has been a title suit between the parties in which a compromise petition was filed, signed by Akbar Ali acknowledging the claim of the private respondents. The suit came to be dismissed for non prosecution. In 1979- 80 and 1980-81, proceedings took place before the 5 Patna High Court LPA No.160 of 2013 (6) dt.26-11-2013 5 / 6 Consolidation authorities who decided in favour of the private respondents. During physical inspection the private respondents have been found to be in possession. We also notice before the Appellate authority, it was the stand of the Appellants themselves that if the authority opined that the dispute related to title, the DCLR should have referred the matter to a competent civil Court. We have examined the order of the DCLR also. He holds that he was not competent under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act to sit in judgment over the order of a Chakbandi Court and if the Appellants so opined, they could move before the Director, Consolidation against the orders of the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The aforesaid narration and the stand of the parties respectively leaves us satisfied that complicated questions of facts as also of law appear to be involved in the inter se dispute for the 4.04 acres of lands in question. Section 7 of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act provides that the proceedings under it shall be summary in nature. Under Section 5 it has powers of a civil Court to the extent mentioned only for admission of evidence, issuance of summons and production of documents etc. Section 4(5) explicitly states that if the case presented before it involves complex questions for adjudication of title, the proceedings shall be closed leaving it open for the parties to seek remedy 6 Patna High Court LPA No.160 of 2013 (6) dt.26-11-2013 6 / 6 before the competent civil Court. In conclusion, we find no reason to interfere with the observations contained in the order dated 29.11.2012. The Appeal is disposed. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar