Patna High Court
Basudev Saw vs The State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2023
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9536 of 2022
======================================================
1. Basudev Saw son of Late Ram Kisun Saw
2. Sanjay Saw, son of Late Kamaldeo Saw
3. Rajesh Saw @ Guddu Saw, son of Late Ram Kisun Saw
4. Gorakh Saw, son of Basudev Saw
5. Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Saw, son of Rajesh Saw @ Guddu Saw
All are resident of Village-Prayag Bigha, Southern Tola, Ward No. 1, P.O.
and P.S.-Dalmiyanagar, District-Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dehri, District-Rohtas.
4. The Circle Officer, Dehri, District-Rohtas.
5. Yamuna Singh, son of Late Ganeshi Singh, resident of Village-Prayag
Bigha, Southern Tola, Ward No. 1, P.O. and P.S. Dalmiyanagar, District-
Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-03-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the
respondent no.5.
The petitioners have filed the instant application for
the following relief(s):
"That, the petitioners crave indulgence of this
Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
2/11
in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order
dated 20.05.2022 passed by learned Land Reforms
Deputy Collector, Dehri, Rohtas in Land Dispute
Resolution Case No.17/2021-22 as contained in
Annexure-2 whereby and whereunder learned
L.R.D.C. Dehri has declared that the petitioners
and respondent no.5 both have equal share of one
katha of the land in question and Circle officer
Dehri was directed to hand over the possession
after measurement by Anchal Amin and it has been
further directed that after measurement the
remaining land of about 5 ft. may be demarcated as
Rasta and further to pass any order/orders,
direction/directions, command/ commands directing
the respondents to not interfere in the peaceful
possession of the petitioners over R.S.Khata
no.654/C.S.Khata no.104, R.S. Plot no.3234/C.S.
Plot 1921, area 21 ft. North-South, 85 ft.-East-West,
situated in Mauza Ganguli, P.S.-Dehri, Thana
no.148, Ward no.1, Nagar Parishad, Dehri
Dalmianagar, District-Rohtas, and further to
declare the impugned order dated 20.05.2022
passed by respondent no.3 in Land Dispute
Resolution Case no.17/2021-22 as illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction."
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the instant application arises out of an order
dated 20.5.2022 passed in Resolution Case no.17/2021-22 by
the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dehri, Rohtas.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
3/11
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
order impugned dated 20.5.2022 was passed by the D.C.L.R.,
Dehri, Rohtas on an application filed by the respondent no.5
under section 4(c) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,
2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is submitted that
the respondent no.5 neither being an allottee nor a settlee as
defined under section 2(f) of the Act, the application under
section 4(c) of the Act itself was not maintainable and
consequently the order impugned dated 20.5.2022 (Annexure-2)
is without jurisdiction. Thus, the same be set aside and the writ
application be allowed.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5
submitted that from perusal of the application filed by the
respondent no.5, copy of which has been brought on record as
annexures to the writ application, it would transpire that the
same is not under section 4(c) of the Act and mentioning the
application of respondent no.5 as being under section 4(c) of the
Act in the order impugned dated 20.5.2022, the D.C.L.R., Dehri,
Rohtas has committed an error of record. It is submitted that as
stated in his petition before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, the
respondent no.5 purchased the land in question by a registered
sale deed dated 27.9.2019 and had filed the application before
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
4/11
the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas praying for demarcation of his
purchased land. Thus, in effect, the application of the respondent
no.5 was with respect to boundary dispute which comes under
section 4(h) of the Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the affidavits on record, it transpires that
the petitioners purchased the land in question by a registered
sale deed dated 3548 dated 27.9.2019 and thereafter a
jamabandi was opened in his name. It is for this land that the
petitioners filed the application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri,
Rohtas which was registered as Land Dispute Case no.17/2021-
22 praying therein for demarcation.
From the materials on record, what is not in dispute is
that the application filed by the petitioners as contained in
Annexure-1 to the writ application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri,
Rohtas was under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,
2009.
Section 4 of the Act talks about the jurisdiction and
authority to resolve the disputes and is quoted herein below for
ready reference:
"4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve disputes.-
(1) The competent authority shall have jurisdiction
and authority to hear and adjudicate, on an
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
5/11
application or complaint or on any application
referred to by a prescribed authority or officer, any
issue arising out of following types of disputes:-
(a) Unauthorised and unlawful dispossession of any
settlee or allottee from any land or part thereof,
settled with or allotted to him [or under any Act or
Policy of the State or Central Government
providing for settlement of government land to the
persons of any specified category] under any Act
contained in Schedule-1 to this Act by issuance of
any settlement document/parcha by a competent
authority;
(b) Restoration of possession of settled / allotted
land in favour of legally entitled settlee/ allottee or
his successors/heirs, upon adjudication of
unauthorized and unlawful dispossession;
(c) Threatened dispossession of a legally entitled
settlee/ allottee;
(d) Any of the matters enumerated in (a), (b) and
(c) above appertaining to raiyati land.
(e) Partition of land holding;
(f) Correction of entry made in the record of rights
including map/survey map.
(g) Declaration of the right of a person;
(h) Boundary disputes;
(i) Construction of unauthorized structure; and
(j) Lis pendens transfer.
(2) The competent authority shall not have
jurisdiction to review or reopen any finally
concluded and adjudicated proceeding under any of
the Acts contained in Schedule-1. The competent
authority shall exercise his authority for resolving
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
6/11
the dispute brought before him on the basis of any
final order passed by any of the authorities
empowered to do so in the Acts contained in
Schedule-1 of this Act.
(3) The competent authority shall not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate any fresh rights of allottee
/ settlee or a raiyat which is not yet determined and
is required to be determined in accordance with
provisions contained in any of the Acts contained in
Schedule-1:
Provided that where rights of allottee / settlee or
raiyat are already determined under any of the Acts
contained in Schedule-1, the competent authority
shall have jurisdiction to entertain cases
appertaining to matters enumerated in sub-
section(1).
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) and (3)herein above, if no provision is
made in any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1 for
determination of rights of allottee / settlee or raiyat
and claimed right is yet to be determined, it shall be
open to the competent authority to finally determine
such right.
(5) The competent authority, wherever it appears to
him that the case instituted before him involves
complex question of adjudication of title, he shall
close the proceeding and leave it open to parties to
seek remedies before the competent Civil
Court."
From perusal of section 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
7/11
Act, the same clearly talks about settlee/allottee or his
successors/heirs. Allottee or settlee has been defined under
section 2(f) of the Act and it reads as follows:
"2. (f) Allottee or Settlee" connotes the person with
whom land has been settled by the competent
authority or the person who has acquired raiyati
rights over the land,[or under any Act or Policy of
the State or Central Government providing for
settlement of government land to the persons of any
specified category] under any of the Acts contained
in Schedule-1 to this Act."
Further, for ready reference, Schedule-1 of the Bihar
Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 is reproduced herein
below:
Schedule-1
(1) The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
(2) The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885
(3) The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead
Tenancy Act, 1947
(4) The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954
(5) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961
(6) The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and
Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
Admittedly, the case of the respondent no.5 not being
that the land in question was a Government land, which was
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
8/11
settled in his favour under any of the Acts, contained in
Schedule-1 to the Act, there can be no dispute with respect to
the fact that the respondent no.5 is neither an allottee nor a
settlee as defined under the Act.
The next question which would arise is as to whether
the authority under the Act would have jurisdiction to decide the
disputes as mentioned in sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j) with respect
to persons who are not settlee/allottee as in the case of this
petitioner. It is true that sections 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) specifically
mentions the term 'settlee/allottee' while the same is not used in
sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j). At this stage, it would be relevant to
refer to the preamble of the Act for purpose of ascertaining the
intent for which the legislature enacted the Act.
The preamble of the Act is reproduced herein below
for ready reference:
"Preamble:- Whereas, in the State of Bihar,
disputes relating to record of rights, boundaries,
entries in revenue records, unlawful occupation of
raiyati land and forcible dispossession of allottees
and settlees of public land, generate problems and
cause unnecessary harassment to bonafide
allotees/settlees, raiyats or occupants;
WHEREAS, such disputes with respect to raiyati
land or public land allotted in favour of different
classes of allottees are unnecessarily occupying
major space of Civil Courts and Hon'ble High
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
9/11
Court and which should otherwise have been
resolved by the Revenue Authorities, who may be
better equipped to deal with such disputes having
regard to their continued presence in the field
offices and their expertise in Revenue
Administration,
WHEREAS, in larger public interest it is deemed
necessary to provide for effective and speedy
mechanism to resolve such disputes which give rise
to major turbulence if not addressed immediately
and effectively;
AND, WHEREAS, it has been found in analysis of
data relating to nature of disputes that they mostly
appertain to matters connected with the record of
rights, partition of jamabandi, forcible
dispossession of allottees / raiyats, boundary
disputes etc. and in this context, the administration
of the following Acts is involved:
(1) The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
(2) The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885,
(3) The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead
Tenancy Act, 1947,
(4) The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954,
(5) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961,
(6) The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and
Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956,
AND, Whereas, different forums and procedures
have been provided for the resolution of disputes
under the above referred Acts and it is considered
expedient to provide a uniform and common forum,
procedure and mechanism which would achieve the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
10/11
objective of effective, efficacious and speedy
resolution of disputes."
From reading of the preamble and the Act as a whole,
there remains no doubt that the purpose of the legislature in
enacting the Act was effective and speedy mechanism to resolve
disputes with respect to matters connected with record of rights,
partition of jamabandi, forcible dispossession of
allottees/raiyats, boundary disputes etc. and in this context, the
Acts namely The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, The Bihar
Tenancy Act, 1885, The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead
Tenancy Act, 1947, The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, The
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and The Bihar Consolidation of
Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 were
involved.
Thus, in the opinion of the Court, what appears from
the reading of the Act as a whole along with its preamble as
quoted herein above and specifically section 3 of the Act, the
purpose of the Act is on resolution of any dispute arising out of
or under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1.
So far as the instant case is concerned, the case of the
respondent no.5, on whose application the proceedings under
Patna High Court CWJC No.9536 of 2022 dt.29-03-2023
11/11
the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 commenced in
the Court of the learned D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, was neither an
allottee nor a settlee nor was his case that the land in question
which is the subject matter of the dispute came in his possession
under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1 to the Bihar
Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.
Thus, in view of the facts stated herein above, the
application filed by the respondent no.5 before the D.C.L.R.,
Dehri, Rohtas under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,
2009 was not maintainable and as a result the order dated
20.5.2022passed in Case no.17/2021-22 by the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas being without jurisdiction, is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
The writ application is allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 29.03.2023 Transmission Date