Patna High Court - Orders
Krishna Deo Sah vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1704 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10365 of 2004
With
Interlocutory Application No. 7683 of 2012
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1704 of 2012
======================================================
Krishna Deo Sah, Son of Late Prasadi Sah, Resident of Village - Jhitikia of
Mauz - Makhdumpur P.O. - Laxmipur, P.S. - Korha, Distt.- Katihar, PIN
854104
.... .... Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Katihar
3. Additional Collector, Katihar
4. Circle Officer, Korha, P.O. - Korha Distt. - Katihar
... Respondents / Respondents 1st set.
5. Arun Mehta, Son of Late Balmiki Mehta,
6. Yogendra Mehta S/O Late Baldeo Mehta
7. Bindeshwari Mehta S/O Late Kunjal Mehta
8. Torai Mehta @ Amit Kumar Mehta S/O Late Namguru Mehta
9. Kaushalya Devi W/O Late Namguru Mehta (Sl. No. 5 to 9 - all residents
of Village - Jhiktia of Mauza - Makdumpur, P.O. - Laxmipur P.S. - Korha
Distt. - Katihar (Pin 854104) .... .... Respondents / Respondents 2nd set.
======================================================
With
Letters Patent Appeal No.1806 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12004 of 2009
With
Interlocutory Application No. 7684 of 2012
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1806 of 2012
======================================================
Krishna Deo Sah, Son of Late Prasadi Sah, Resident of Village - Jhitikia of
Mauz - Makhdumpur P.O. - Laxmipur, P.S. - Korha, Distt.- Katihar, PIN
854104
.... .... Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Patna High Court LPA No.1704 of 2012 (5) dt.20-06-2013
2/5
1. The State of Bihar
2. District Magistrate, Katihar
3. Additional District Magistrate, Katihar
4. Circle Officer, Korha, P.O. - Korha, Distt. - Katihar
... Respondents / Respondents 1st set.
5. Arun Mehta, Son of Late Balmiki Mehta,
6. Yogendra Mehta S/O Late Baldeo Mehta
7. Bindeshwari Mehta S/O Late Kunjal Mehta
8. Torai Mehta @ Amit Kumar Mehta S/O Late Namguru Mehta
9. Kaushalya Devi W/O Late Namguru Mehta (Sl. No. 5 to 9 - all residents
of Village - Jhiktia of Mauza - Makdumpur, P.O. - Laxmipur P.S. - Korha
Distt. - Katihar (Pin 854104) .... .... Respondents / Respondents 2nd set.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
(In LPA No.1704 of 2012)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents-State: Mr. Ajay, SC 11.
For the Respondent nos.5 to 9: None.
(In LPA No.1806 of 2012)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents-State: Mr. Ajay, SC 11.
For the Respondent nos.5 to 9: None.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
5 20-06-2013Though served, the respondent nos. 5 to 9 have not entered appearance.
These two Appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from common judgment and order dated 24 th Patna High Court LPA No.1704 of 2012 (5) dt.20-06-2013 3/5 August 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10365 of 2004 and CWJC No. 12004 of 2009.
The matter at dispute is the land plot no. 1510 of Khata no. 58 admeasuring 1 decimal situated at Mauza - Makhdumpur, Circle - Korha, Post - Laxmipur, District - Katihar. It is the claim of the appellant - writ petitioner that as early as in 1975, the appellant being a landless person, the disputed land plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal and plot no. 1511 admeasuring 2 decimals were settled in favour of the petitioner. Since then the petitioner had constructed a house on the said land plot nos. 1510 & 1511 admeasuring 3 decimals. Somewhere around 1997 the original land owner forcibly recovered possession of the land plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal from the appellant. The appellant immediately approached the District Collector in Complaint Case No. 496/97-98 and sought recovery of possession of the aforesaid plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal. Since the possession was not restored to the appellant, he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 10365 of 2004 for recovery of possession of the land plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal. Pending the said proceeding, the District Collector, Katihar, under his order dated 24th February 2009, directed that the purcha issued in favour of the appellant be modified so as to refer to the land plot no. 1511 admeasuring 2 decimals. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 12004 of 2009.
According to the appellant, 3 decimals land was settled in favour of the appellant of plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal and plot no. 1511 admeasuring 2 decimals. However, due to clerical mistake committed by the revenue clerk the purcha Patna High Court LPA No.1704 of 2012 (5) dt.20-06-2013 4/5 issued in favour of the appellant referred to the land plot no. 1511 admeasuring 3 decimals. The clerical mistake is apparent. Instead of correcting the mistake and adding plot no. 1510, the District Collector has now directed that the purcha be issued in respect of land plot no. 1511 admeasuring 2 decimals alone. Thus, the petitioner has been illegally deprived of his right to possession as privileged tenant over the land plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal.
The petition was contested by the respondent nos. 5 to 9. According to the respondent nos. 5 to 9, the plot no. 1510 admeasuring 1 decimal belonged to the respondent nos. 5 to 9 and they were always in possession of the said plot no. 1510. It was the appellant who was trying to take undue advantage of the fact that the area of the land plot no. 1511 was erroneously mentioned as that of 3 decimals.
The learned single Judge has recorded the finding that the land plot no. 1511 alone was settled in favour of the appellant. The appellant was never in possession of the plot no. 1510. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge has dismissed both the Writ Petitions. Therefore, these Appeals.
Learned advocate Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad has appeared for the appellant. Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad has vehemently submitted that the appellant was a landless person and a privileged tenant; he was, therefore, issued the purcha in respect of plot nos. 1510 & 1511 of total area of 3 decimals as early as in 1975. He has submitted that the District Collector has no authority to review the order and modify the purcha. The order made by the District Collector is, therefore, unsustainable. He has submitted that the purcha requires to be altered and corrected and the land plot no.
Patna High Court LPA No.1704 of 2012 (5) dt.20-06-2013 5/51510 requires to be included in the purcha. He has also submitted that the appellant has constructed a house over the said land plot no. 1510 of which he has been dispossessed by the respondent nos. 5 to 9.
We see no merit in these Appeals. Copy of the purcha is produced on the record. Clearly the purcha was issued in respect of the land plot no. 1511 alone; the total area of which was mentioned as 3 decimals which could be a mistake. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the land plot no. 1510 was ever allotted to the appellant or the appellant was ever in possession of the said land plot no. 1510 or that he had constructed a house on the said plot no. 1510. Since there is no material to confirm the possession by the appellant over the land plot no. 1510 or the existence of a house constructed by the appellant on plot no. 1510, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions. No case for interference is made out.
Appeals are dismissed in limine.
Interlocutory Application nos. 7683 of 2012 and 7684 of 2012 stand disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Dilip.