Patna High Court - Orders
Chandrabanshi Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 May, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 20002 of 2013
======================================================
Chandrabanshi Singh Son Of Late Shital Singh Resident Of Mauja Digha,
P.S. Digha, P.O. Digha Ghat, Town And District Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Land Reforms, Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Collector, Patna
4. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s R K P Singh, Sanjay Kr, Advocates
For the S t a t e :
Mr Arvind Ujjwal, SC 25 &
Mr Maruth Nath Roy, AC to SC 25
======================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 15-05-2014A counter affidavit is on record. Court had adjourned the matter to enable State to file a better counter affidavit. State has chosen not to do so. Petitioner does not seek to file a rejoinder. Pleadings, being complete, with consent of parties, the case was heard at length for final disposal at this stage itself.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent-State and the district authorities of Patna, in particular, to issue rent receipts after receiving due rent for the lands which have been settled with the petitioner and which are in petitioner's possession. As usual, State Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 2 has sought to create controversy when there was none.
Case of petitioner is that these lands had been settled with the ancestors of petitioner sometime in the year 1926-1927. Petitioner's ancestors were recorded as raiyats pursuant to settlement made at that time by the State. Accordingly, Jamabandi was opened and continued from that day. Till recently, revenue was accepted and rent receipts issued by the State but, for some mischievous reason, suddenly State stopped accepting the revenue or issuing rent receipts. It virtually started denying or challenging the interest of the petitioner in the land itself. That is what forced the petitioner to come to this Court.
The counter affidavit, that has been filed, clearly shows the stand of the State. Apart from being incorrect, it is rightly termed as mischievous. It is only based upon an opinion obtained from the Government Pleader (GP), Patna. The stand of the State is that the land in question is known as the Digha-Diara khasmahal land and, as such, it is khasmahal land. It was never settled to the ancestors of petitioner or petitioner by the Collector. The Jamabandis were wrongly drawn up. The entries in Register II showing ancestors of petitioner as the settlees were wrongly done.
It is admitted that it is round about 1925 that substantial lands along the southern part of river Ganga emerged Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 3 by river changing its course. Those lands were then surveyed and Tauzi No 17554 was created in the name of Secretary of State for India in Council. This was in 1925. State further stated that a suit had been filed in relation to those lands which suit was dismissed in favour of the State. The plaintiff of the suit filed first appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed in favour of the State. The counter affidavit further states that petitioner must show how Jamabandi was created and show how khasmahal lands were settled. All this is being urged after almost 90 years of settlement.
Having heard the parties, all I can say regrettably is that it is truly a mischievous case set up by the State. The facts are partly apparent from the State's own counter affidavit. Firstly, State claims that it is khasmahal land. The claim is based upon the opinion of the GP, Patna which opinion is annexed as Annexure A. Petitioner submits that it was never khasmahal land and it was only locally referred to as Digha-Diara khasmahal. If we refer to the opinion of the GP, it is clear that he acknowledges that this area is commonly called as Digha-Diara khasmahal. In that opinion itself, it is further stated that having been called as Digha- Diara khasmahal land, it is khasmahal land. In my view, they are two different things. Calling a property khasmahal and the Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 4 property being a khasmahal property are two different things. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out as to what actually is the state of affairs.
In 1925-1926, substantial lands emerged out of the Ganga river bed as a consequence of river Ganga changing its course. This was on the southern bank of the river in the area Digha-Diara. That area fell under the zamindari of what was known as Panapur Estate. Those substantial lands having become available for settlement, Government of India ordered for survey of the entire land. Accordingly, those lands were extensively surveyed and khatiyans were opened. This led to creation of Tauzi No 17554 and it was clearly entered as land of Secretary of State for India in Council. Panapur Estate laid claims over these lands. To distinguish it from other Government lands, these lands were then referred to as the Digha-Diara khasmahal lands. They were not khasmahal land. immediately in 1926 itself, after the survey was completed, these lands were settled with the ancestors of the petitioner and large number of persons like them by the Provincial Government. There being dispute between the Panapur Estate and the State with regard to the right to make settlement of these lands, Panapur Estate filed three civil suits asserting its right, title and interest in the said lands as against the Province of Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 5 and the ancestors of petitioner who were settlees from the Province of Bihar because Panapur Estate wanted to make settlements independently. The suits were contested not only by Province of Bihar but by the ancestors of petitioner as well both of whom were defendants in the suits. The stand of the petitioner's ancestor was that they were lawful settlees of the Province of Bihar which stand was accepted and admitted by the Province of Bihar. Upon contest, the suit was dismissed and it was held that the lands were of the Province of Bihar and the petitioners, who were co-defendants, were settlees from the State of Bihar. Panapur Estate then appealed to this Court in first appeal. The first appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The matter rested thus. From this, it is apparent that the petitioner's ancestors were lawful settlees within the knowledge of the State and admitted by the State. Accordingly, much prior to independence, Jamabandi had been created in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner. In Register II, names of ancestors of petitioner are duly found entered as settlees from the Province of Bihar. Accordingly, after independence and thereafter after the vesting of zamindari by virtue of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Jamabandis in favour of petitioner's ancestors continued uninterrupted and they continued to pay rent to the State till Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 6 recently when some mischievous officers, for their own gain, tried to dislodge the petitioner so that the officials could get substantial lands to settle afresh obviously for some considerations. This mischief was then started. The facts, as aforesaid, all stand tacitly admitted in the counter affidavit but still the State doubts as to how these things were done. My answer to this is that almost 80 to 90 years of the settlement, it is too late in the day for the State to even urge such a thing. Petitioner's ancestors have been recognized as a lawful settlee for over 80 years. They fought the civil suit alongwith the Government. Government never contradicted the stand rather the whole case of the Government was that Panapur Estate was not entitled to make settlements, for these lands were Province of Bihar and they made settlements. Petitioner's ancestors were the defendants. Now it is too late in the day for the State to take a different stand or a different view of the matter.
Thus, there is no jurisdiction now in the State to even enquire into the matter much less try and unsettle the issues or unsettle the settlement or take steps for resettlement of those areas in that Tauzi or to cancel the Jamabandi. Thus, the right, title and interest of the petitioner through his ancestors cannot be now disputed. Thus, State is bound to issue proper revenue receipts Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 7 upon payment of revenue as was being done.
Before closing, I may notice two aspects. Firstly, petitioner has already been duly mutated in the revenue records in respect of those lands. Secondly, why this mischief is being done?
Learned counsel points out that if State can get rid of the petitioner then two things open up for the State. Firstly, State officials become free to start making settlements afresh. Needless to say what consequences flow. Secondly and more importantly, a road is planned to be constructed in future across the said land. The entire effort is to dispute and deny the title of the settlees, thus, to deny them compensation and make the road cheaper for the State. In other words, to trample upon the rights of the citizen for wrongful gain to the State. That cannot be permitted.
In this connection, all I can refer to what the Apex Court said in the case of M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills -Versus- The State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1681.
"... ... ... We hopefully expect that the Central Government will not try to shirk its legal obligation by resorting to any legal technicalities, for we maintain that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but should do Patna High Court CWJC No.20002 of 2013 (5) dt.15-05-2014 8 what fairness and justice demand. ... ... ..."
Accordingly, let a writ of mandamus be issued to the State to issue rent receipts upon payment of rent by the petitioner for the entire period during which State has refused to issue rent receipts and not to disturb possession of the petitioner except by authority of law and procedure established by law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
M.E.H./-AFR (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)