Patna High Court
Jagdish Singh & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 April, 2010
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 11683 OF 1999 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). 1. Jagdish Singh. 2. Sheojee Singh. Both sons of Late Harihar Singh, Resident of Village- Yadavpur, P.S.- Tiar, District- Bhojpur :----------Petitioners. -VERSUS- 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR, ARRAH. 5. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BIHIYA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 6. BISHESWAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAJIAPUR, P.S. BARHARA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SRI KRISHNAPURI, P.S.- S.K. PURI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 7. KHESARI RAM, SON OF GOBIND RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JADOPUR, POST- MAHUWAN, P.S. TIYAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 8. BHADARAI DEVI, W/O- RAM AYODHYA RAM. 9. HIRANATH RAM, S/O- LATE RAMGOBIND RAM. 10. DEVANTI DEVI, WIFE OF HIRANATH RAM. 11. KHESARI RAM, SON OF LATE RAM GOVIND RAM. 12. LAKSHMANIA, DEVI, WIFE OF KHESARI RAM. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- YADOPUR, P.O.- MAHUWARI, P.S.- TIYAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For The Petitioners : KUMAR UDAY SINGH, Advocate. For The State :Kumari Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling). ====== PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling) for the State. -2-
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur in Ceiling Appeal No. 08/1991-92, Annexure-9, whereunder learned Collector has refused to exclude the lands of the petitioners detailed in Paragraph-6 of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against father of Private Respondent No. 6 although 0.65 decimals of land of Village- Kanhai Gyan Singh stood recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners in cadastral Survey Khatiyan, Annexure-1 and 44 decimals of land of Village- Yadavpur was purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 4.9.1947 by Harihar Singh, father of the petitioners from Ram Pujan Singh. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 15/98, Annexure- 10, whereunder the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur and refused to exclude the lands detailed in paragraph-6 of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the lands detailed in paragraph-6 of this petition has been recorded in the cadastral survey Khatiyan in the name of their ancestors, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh and the -3- cadastral survey Khatiyan of the said land is contained in Annexure-1 to this application which would indicate that the lands in-question pertain to Khata No. 11 of Village- Kanhaiya Gyan Singh and Khata No. 26 of Village- Yadopur and it is recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh. In this connection it is pointed out that the common ancestor of the petitioners is Ram Sahay Singh who had four sons, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh, Dulam Singh. Petitioners belong to the branch of Gurdayal Singh, who had three sons, namely, Ram Sunder Singh, Rajpati Singh and Raja Singh. Ram Sunder Singh had one son, Radha Singh who had also one son, Harihar Singh and Harihar Singh had two sons, namely, Jagdish Singh and Sheojee Singh who are petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
During the revisional survey and the consolidation proceeding the lands in-question were wrongly recorded in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 and no sooner petitioners learnt about such erroneous recording they filed their objection before the Consolidation Officer, Bihiya which was numbered as 93 of 83-84/ 126 of 90-91 in which father of Private Respondent No. 6 was noticed to appear who appeared and conceded the position that the lands of Village- -4- Kanhaiya Gyan Singh stood recorded during the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and the land of Village- Yadopur was purchased by Harihar Singh, the father of the petitioners vide registered sale-deed dated 4.9.1947 which would be evident from the cadastral survey Khatiyan which is in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh and the sale deed dated 4.9.1947 and in appreciation of such fair stand taken by the father of Private Respondent No. 6 the consolidation authorities passed order dated 17.1.1991 directing that the Register of Land be corrected and the lands in-question be recorded in the name of the petitioners. During the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 a report dated 10.8.1977 was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Bihiya stating that the lands in-question are in possession of the petitioners but it appears the report of the Block Development Officer, Bihiya as also the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.1.1991 was ignored and the father of Private Respondent No. 6 was taken as the raiyat of the lands in-question. No sooner petitioners learnt that the lands detailed in Paragraph-6 of this petition have been wrongly shown in the draft statement -5- published during the ceiling proceeding in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 they filed their objection before the Collector under the Act placing reliance on the rent receipt dated 28.3.1957, 30.3.1956, 26.1.1962 and 27.8.1954, report of the Block Development Officer, Bihiya dated 10.8.1977 and the order passed by the Consolidation authorities. The authorities ignored the submission of the petitioners and declared the lands as surplus land of the father of Private Respondent No. 6, whereafter petitioners filed their objection which was also rejected by the Collector under order dated 03.01.1998, Annexure-9 passed by the Collector which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue under orders dated 24.03.1999, Annexure-10. The two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 9 and 10 have been assailed by the petitioners in the instant case on the ground that the authorities while passing the order refusing to exclude the lands detailed in Paragraph-6 of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 have not only ignored the report of the Block Development Officer Bihiya dated 10.08.1977 which was submitted after making local inspection and having found possession of the petitioners over the same but also ignored the order of the consolidation authorities -6- preceded by an enquiry and having found the possession of the petitioners over the lands should have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.
4. I have perused the order passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 9 and 10, wherefrom it does not appear that any cogent reasons have been given to ignore the report of the Block Development Officer which was submitted after verifying the possession of the petitioners over the lands in-question. The authorities below have also not given any reason as to why they should ignore the order passed by the survey authorities. They have ignored the order passed by the survey authorities only on the ground that it is preceded by a compromise between the father of private respondent no. 6 and the petitioners. While rejecting the compromise entered into by and between the petitioners and the father of private respondent no. 6 the authorities did not notice that during the cadastral survey the lands stood recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and there was no basis on which it was recorded in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 during the revisional survey proceeding. If there was a mistake committed during the revisional survey proceeding and -7- the lands were erroneously recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 as there being no transaction with regard to the lands in-question after cadastral and before revisional survey in favour of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 there was no basis for recording the lands in-question in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 and in appreciation of such fact father of Private Respondent No. 6 conceded before the revisional survey authorities that revisional survey entry of the lands in-question is without any basis such honest confession made by the father of Private Respondent No. 6 does not mean that he is in collusion with the petitioners.
5. In view of my finding and observation above, I set aside the order passed by the Collector, Bhojpur dated 03.01.1998 and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 24.3.1999, as contained in Annexures- 9 and 10 and remit back the matter to the Collector of the District who should either examine the matter himself or ask any of the Collector under the Act to verify whether the lands in-question stood recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and if it is found that the lands stood recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and there is no basis for recording those lands -8- during revisional survey in favour of the father of Private Respondent No.6 then the lands be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. Necessary orders in the light of my order be passed by the Collector of the district or the Collector under the Act authorized by the Collector of the District, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.
The Patna High Court. (V.N.Sinha,J.)
The 27th April, 2010
P.K.P./N.A.F.R.