Patna High Court - Orders
Md.Hasim & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 September, 2011
Author: T. Meena Kumari
Bench: T. Meena Kumari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.415 of 2009
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15043 of 2007
==================================================
1. Md.Hasim
2. Md. Nizam
Both sons of Md Tahir, resident ofvillage
Khaira Garhiya, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt.
Arariya
.... .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Circle Officer, Narpatganj
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Farbisganj,
Distt. Arariya
4. Md. Mojibuddin
5. Md. Abdul Mazid
6. Md. Kashim
all sons of late Bipat Ali
7. Md. Jubair
8. Md. Subair
both sons of late Karim
9. Md. Alauddin
10. Md. Qutubuddin
both sons of Sifat Ali
11. Md. Samim
12. Md. Raish
13. Md. Nasim
all sons of Abdul Rahman
all resident of village Khaira Garahiya,
P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Arariya
14. Harihar Bayawala, S/o Late Hazarimal
Bayanwala resident of Farbisganj, Distt.
Arariya
15. Ashok Kumar Bayanwala, s/o Sri Ram Kumar
Bayanwala, resident of 96, Swastik
Society, Navrangpura, Ahemadabad, Distt.
Ahemadabad
.... .... Respondents
==================================================
For the appellants:-Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For respondent nos. 1 to 3
:- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.-7
11 09-09-2011The present appeal has been filed Patna High Court LPA No.415 of 2009 (11) dt.09-09-2011 against the order dated 03.03.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15043 of 2007 which was filed by the petitioners-appellants herein questioning the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by respondent no.3 in appeal case No.5/06-07 which was filed against the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Narpatganj in case No.223/92-93 /4A/06-07.
The learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the appellants are purchaser of the land in dispute, measuring 4.57 acres situated at mauza Khaira, Thana no. 216 in the district of Arariaya from father of the respondent no. 15 by registered sale deed on 08.11.2006. But however, the application filed by respondent no.4 is purported to be one filed under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act before respondent no.2, claiming bataidari rights with respect to the lands in question. The same was allowed by order dated 07.11.2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). As the appellants were not the parties to the order dated 07.11.2006, the appeal preferred by them was rejected. But however, the learned Single Judge has held that the appellants herein are Patna High Court LPA No.415 of 2009 (11) dt.09-09-2011 entitled for the amount of compensation as per the order dated 07.11.2006 and modified the order dated 07.11.2006 holding that they shall be entitled to the amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from the appropriate date. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present appeal has been filed.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that they are purchaser of the land by registered sale deed from father of respondent no.15 and without going into the question as to whether they are entitled as they were not parties to the order dated 07.11.2006, their rights cannot be taken away which was accrued to them by purchaser of the land.
None appeared on behalf of the
respondent nos.4 to 17.
We are of the opinion that as the
appellants are not parties before the
appropriate authorities who has passed the
impugned order and allowed the petition under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, therefore, the matter has to be remanded back to the Circle Officer, Narpatganj i.e. respondent no.2.
Patna High Court LPA No.415 of 2009 (11) dt.09-09-2011
Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the Circle Officer, Narpatganj, (Respondent No.2) to hear the matter afresh on the application filed by respondent no.4 under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act in accordance with law after issuing notice to all the parties concerned and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.) Ashwini/-