SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors

it clear that the word „residents‟ includes two types which are : (1) a permanent residence and (2) a temporary residence. First type of residence from all the permanent dwelling which means that the person has settled down at a particular place permanently and regularly for some purpose. The second type refers to a situation that the person is not residing at place forever but residing at a place for a temporary period or not for a considerable length of time. This is also referred to a temporary living in a place. Hence, in one place the word include „residence‟ is interpreted in the strict permanent living at a place which may be referred to a domicile and in the second place the word is interpreted flexible sense to show a temporary or tentative residence.” “11. From the aforesaid analysis it apparent „residence‟ is generally understood as referring to a person in connection with the place where he lives, and may be defined as one who resides in a place or one who dwells in a place for a considerable period of time as distinguished from one who merely works in a certain locality or comes casually for a visit and the place of work or the place of casual visit are different from the place of „residence‟. There are two classifications of the meaning of the word „residence‟. First is in the form of permanent and temporary residence and the second classification is based on de facto and de jure residence. The de facto concept of residence can also be understood clearly by the meaning Black of the word „residence‟ as given in 8th Edition. It is given that the word residence means bodily presence as Dictionary, Law 9 an inhabitant in a given place. Thus de facto residence is also to be understood as the place where one regularly resides as different to the places where he is connected to by mere ancestral connections or political connections or connection by marriage.” On a consideration of the materials on the record as also the decisions cited by learned counsel for the State, this Court does not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the State. It is evident from the materials on the record that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing the fact that his ancestral house is still in existence in his village home of which he is in joint ownership and possession with his cousin and further agricultural and orchard lands are jointly owned by him in the area. In support of the same the revisional survey khatian and the rent receipts have been produced. The same have not at all been denied by the respondent-State in its counter affidavit. Moreover, it is clear from the decisions cited that the question of residence is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be decided keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the context and the purpose for which the residential requirement is sought. 10 In Dudh Nath Prasad‟s case the Supreme Court has considered the fact that domicile of origin differs from domicile of choice on account of the fact that its character is more enduring, its hold stronger and less easily shaken off. It has further been pointed out in the said decision that residence and domicile carry the same meaning, inasmuch as both refer to the permanent home. It is evident from the letter dated

21.6.2008 issued to the petitioner‟s daughter that what was sought by the said letter was the residential certificate along with full details of the residence and status as permanent residence/domicile of Bihar. Nothing has been brought on the record by the State authorities to show that the permanent resident/domicile of Bihar in relation to the petitioner has been shaken off by mere fact that he is in service in the State of U.P. It is evident that the petitioner still continues to retain his ancestral home in his village as also his ancestral lands. The said facts have not been denied in the counter affidavit. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was entitled to 11 issuance a permanent residential certificate in his favour by the respondent authorities. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the competent authority as required by Annexure-1, namely,the District Magistrate, Madhubani is directed to issue the residential certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)