Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.8742 of 2004 (8) dt.12-08-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8742 of 2004 ====================================================== 1. Shio Kumar Singh, son of Late Harihar Singh 2. Upendra Singh, son of Shio Kumar Singh 3. Bijoy Kumar Singh, son of Shio Kumar Singh 4. Dadan Singh, son of Shio Kumar Singh Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of village-Budhawal, Pargana Bihia, Police Station, Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur (Arrah). 5. Ganga Prasad, son of Late Mangal Sah 6. Amit Kumar Gupta, son of Ganga Prasad Nos. 5 & 6 are residents of village-Jagdishpur, Nagar Palika Ward No. 11, P.S.-Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur(Ara). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur (Ara) 3. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Jatan Singh 4. Prabhawati Devi, wife of Dineshwar Prasad Singh Nos. 3 & 4 are residents of village-Budhawal, Pargna Bihia, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur (Ara). .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2730 of 2005 ====================================================== 1. Shio Kumar Singh, son of Late Harihar Singh 2. Upendra Singh, son of Shio Kumar Singh 3. Bijoy Kumar Singh, son of Shio Kumar Singh 4. Dadan Singh, son of Shio Kumar Singh Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of village-Budhawal, Pargana Bihia, Police Station, Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur (Arrah). 5. Ganga Prasad, son of Late Mangal Sah 6. Amit Kumar Gupta, son of Ganga Prasad Nos. 5 & 6 are residents of village-Jagdishpur, Nagar Palika Ward No. 11, P.S.-Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur(Ara). Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, District-Bhojpur, Arrah 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur, Arrah 4. Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur, Arrah 5. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Jatan Singh 6. Prabhawati Devi, wife of Dineshwar Prasad Singh Nos. 5 & 6 are residents of village-Budhwal Pargana Bihia, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur (Ara). .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.8742 of 2004)
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.8742 of 2004 (8) dt.12-08-2013 2
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhrub Narain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Nutan Sahay, A.C. to S.C.-I For the Respondent No. 3 & 4 : Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, Advocate (In CWJC No.2730 of 2005) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhrub Narain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, S.C. 12 For the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 8 12-08-2013 Heard the parties. 2. In the aforementioned two writ petitions, issues of facts and issues of law are common and identical, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the matters have been taken up
Decision
together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Basically, the dispute between the petitioners at one side and the contesting private respondents at the other side are dispute of right, title and possession over the lands under dispute. All the petitioners claim to be purchasers through registered sale deeds executed in their favour by one Ramashish Singh, who is said to be insane. Sundri Devi, wife of the aforesaid Ramashish Singh, is said to have executed deed of gift in favour of her sister-in-law (Gotni), namely, Prabhawati Devi. Aforesaid Prabhawati Devi and her husband, Dineshwar Prasad Singh are the contesting respondents in both the writ petitions. 4. The claim of mutation raised on behalf of the aforesaid Prabhawati Devi with respect to the lands under dispute Patna High Court CWJC No.8742 of 2004 (8) dt.12-08-2013 3 was allowed by order dated 2.11.1991 (Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No. 8742 of 2004). Appeal preferred by the aforesaid Ramashish Singh, vendor of the petitioners, was dismissed by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur by order dated 28.10.1997 (Annexure-2 in C.W.J.C. No. 8742 of 2004). Thereafter, petitioners, being purchasers, filed Mutation Revision No. 28 of 1997-98 before the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.2.2004 (Annexure-4). 5. The petitioners have raised a valid grievance that while passing the impugned revisional order dated 14.2.2004 (Annexure-4) the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur, has arbitrarily declared the sale deeds executed by the aforesaid Ramashish Singh in their favour as illegal, and, has consequently set aside those sale deeds. It is contended that it was not within the domain of the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur, in the aforesaid proceeding to set aside the aforesaid sale deeds, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction with respect to the claim of mutation. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 2730 of 2005 wherein it has been stated that petitioners herein filed Title Suit No. 39 of 2002 in the court of the learned Munsif, Ara, with respect to the same subject matter. A declaration was sought by the plaintiffs that the sale deeds executed by the aforesaid Ramashish Singh in their favour be declared valid, as a result thereof, the plaintiff- petitioners have acquired their right, title and possession over the lands under dispute. It is contended on behalf of the contesting respondents that the aforesaid Title Suit was contested by them, Patna High Court CWJC No.8742 of 2004 (8) dt.12-08-2013 4 who were defendants in the aforesaid Title Suit, and finally by judgment and decree dated 17.1.2013 the aforesaid Title Suit was dismissed. Therefore, it is pleaded that in view of the decision of the civil court of competent jurisdiction, the petitioners cannot claim right, title and possession over the lands under dispute. 7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners today during the course of hearing of the case, wherein it is stated that against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 2002, the petitioners have filed Title Appeal No. 33 of 2013 which has been admitted for hearing. 8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, particularly in view of the judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court, referred to above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned passed by the revenue authorities, whereby claim of mutation with respect to the lands under dispute in favour of the petitioners or his vendor has been rejected. However, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur, while passing the impugned order dated 14.2.2004 in Mutation Revision No. 28 of 1997-98 was not justified in declaring the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners by the aforesaid Ramashish Singh as illegal. However, since the validity of the aforesaid sale deeds itself was a subject matter of consideration before the civil court in the aforesaid Title Suit, therefore, the petitioners have not suffered any prejudice by the impugned order passed by the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur. 9. Since the petitioners have challenged the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Patna High Court CWJC No.8742 of 2004 (8) dt.12-08-2013 5 Munsif, IInd, Ara in a Title Appeal, which is said to have been admitted by the learned lower appellate court, it is directed that the aforesaid Title Appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners shall be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced or influenced by any findings recorded by the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur, in his order dated 14.2.2004 with respect to the aforesaid sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. 10. In the result, both the writ petitions stand dismissed with the observations and directions made above. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) sudip/-