Patna High Court
Akhilesh Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 1 April, 2024
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17154 of 2022
======================================================
Akhilesh Singh s/o Dharichhan Singh Resident of Village and Post- Dinara,
District- Rohtas, Pin Code- 802213.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principle Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms,
Patna Bihar.
2. The Collector, Rohtas.
3. The Additional Collector, Sasaram, Rohtas.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Rohtas.
5. The Circle Officer, Dinara, District- Rohtas.
6. Dhanpato Devi w/o Sri Singh Resident of Village- Girdhariya, P.O. and P.S.-
Dinara, District- Rohtas, Pin Code- 802213.
7. Dharichan Singh s/o Late Kedar Singh resident of Village and Post- Dinara,
District- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Bambam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : AC to AAG-12
For the Respondent no. 6: Mr. Uday Prakash Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-04-2024
The question that has arisen in the writ petition
is whether the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj,
Rohtas can travel beyond section 4 of the Bihar Land Dispute
Resolution Act, 2009 (henceforth for short 'the 2009 Act') or
not.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred
for the following reliefs:
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
2/16
(i) for issuance of writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 04.11.2022 passed by DCLR,
Bikramganj, Rohtas in Land Dispute Case
No. 30/2022-23 by which he has directed the
Circle Office, Dinara to measured the land
of respondent 2nd set and if found opposite
party in illegal possession then same may be
vacated;
(ii) for directing the official
respondents to not take any co-ercive step in
the light of order as contained in annexure-1
till final disposal of the writ petition;
(iii) for commanding the
respondents to maintain status quo over the
land in question till final disposal of the writ
petition.
3. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to AAG-12 as also Mr.
Uday Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent no. 6.
4. The facts of the case is/are as follows:
5. The grandfather of the petitioner, namely, late
Kedar Singh purchased a piece of land on 04.06.1942
(Annexure-2). In the R.S. khatian prepared during the period
1970-72, the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, Late
Kedar Singh was incorporated. The land later came in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
3/16
possession of his son, Harichand Singh and then to the
grandson, Akhilesh Singh (the petitioner herein). The rent
receipts are also on record (Annexure-4 series).
6. The case of the petitioner is that his agnate,
namely, Umda Kuwar gifted some land to his daughter,
Dhanpato Devi on 31.08.1982. However, in the said gift, the
land of the petitioner/grandfather (late Kedar Singh ) was also
included. This followed a Mutation Case no. 161/83 by the
Circle Officer, Dinara in favour of Dhanpato Devi which was
done ex-parte behind the back of the petitioner.
7. Vide Mutation Appeal no. 870/1984-85, the
father of the petitioner, Dharikchan Singh preferred aforesaid
appeal before the DCLR, Bikramganj who called for a report
and on the basis of the report submitted by the Circle Officer,
having been satisfied, the mutation appeal was allowed in favour
of the petitioner's family on 26.03.1985.
8. Mutation Revision thereafter preferred by the
respondent no. 6, Dhanpato Devi came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution on 06.12.1989. This followed filing of the Title Suit
No. 42 of 2003 before the competent Civil Court by Dhanpato
Devi which too got dismissed on 09.08.2012 for non-
prosecution.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
4/16
9. The case of the petitioner is that a decade later
under 'the 2009 Act', B.L.D.R Case No. 30/22 was preferred
and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Rohtas
vide an order dated 04.11.2022 allowed the said petition
directing the Circle Officer, Dinara to do the needful (Annexure-
1 to the writ petition).
10. It is his contention that while doing so, the
respondent no. 6, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms moved
beyond its jurisdiction inasmuch as the order under Section 4 of
'the 2009 Act' can be passed only in case of settlee/allottee and
not when there is a dispute between the two private
individuals/parties.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 6, on the other hand submits that by way of valid
piece of gift of deed the land in question was/were transferred
to Dhanpato Devi by her mother, Kumda Kuer.
12. He further took this Court an order passed in
Title Suit No. 147/1998 that was fought between the lady,
Dhanpato Devi as also the son of her sister, Asharfi Devi in
which the challenge to the gift in favour of Dhanpato Devi was
rejected by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram vide
an order dated 15.11.2006. This was challenged in Title Appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
5/16
No. 116 of 2006 by Dindayal Singh (son of sister of Dhanpato
Devi) which again came to be dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge-IV, Rohtas, Sasaram on 19.08.2015.
13. Learned Counsel as such submits that when
the gift deed got validly stamped both in the Title suit as well as
the Title Appeal, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was well
within its right in passing the order in question.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the
other hand, submits that a bare perusal of the order would show
that it was friendly fight between the two sisters in which the
petitioner/his family members were never made party and as
such, the same is not applicable on them.
15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, though tried to justify the order passed by the Deputy
Collector Land Reforms on specific question whether the
Officer concerned can move beyond Section 4 of 'the 2009 Act',
the answer was evasive.
16. This Court will like to incorporate Section 4
of ' the 2000 Act' which read as follows:-
4. Jurisdiction and authority to
resolve disputes- (1) The Competent Authority
shall have jurisdiction and authority to hear and
adjudicate, on an application or complaint or on
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
6/16
any application referred to by a Prescribed
Authority or Officer, any issue arising out of
following types of disputes:-
Unauthorised and unlawful
dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any
land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him
for under any Ad 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 settlemen
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 appertainings raiyati land;
(e) Partition of land holding;
(f) Correction of entry made in the
Record of Rights including map/survey mag
(g) Declaration of the right of a
person;
(h) Boundary disputes;
(i) Construction of unauthorized
structure; and
(j) Lis pendens transfer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
7/16
(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 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) hereinabove,
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
8/16
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."
17. A perusal of the said section would clearly
show that it is restricted to the settlee or the allottee of a land
where there is unauthorized unlawful dispossession as also
relating to restoration of possession of settled/allotted land.
18. Admittedly, the petitioner as also the
respondent no. 6 are neither the settlee nor the allottee. It is a
specific case of the petitioner that in the year, 1942, the land was
purchased by the grandfather namely, Late Kedar Singh
whereas the case of the respondent no. 6 is that the property was
gifted by her mother, Kumda Kuer who was wife of Sarjoo
Singh, own brother of late Kedar Singh. Thus, ' the DCLR'
could not have passed any order under the said section of 'the
2000 Act'.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court in the case of Ram Bachan Singh vs.
State of Bihar reported in 2023 (2) PLJR 554 and it would be
relevant to incorporate paragraph nos. 9 to 11 which read as
follows:-
"Having heard come the the
parties and taking into consideration the avements
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
9/16
made, the question with respect to maintainability
of an application under the Band Disputes Act
2009 came up for consideration in the Court in the
case of Basudev Saw & Ors. vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. Which was decided by judgement
dated 29.03.2023 passed in CWLC No 9536 of
2022. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"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 petition before the
D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtes was under
the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution
Act, 2009.
Admittedly, the case of
the respondent no. 5 not being that the
land in question was a Government
land, which was settled in his favour
under any of the Acts content 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 Section 4(1)e to 4(1)j
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
10/16
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 "setllee/allottee" while the
same it not used in sections 4(1)(e) to
4(1)(j). At this stage, it would be
relevant to refer to the premable of the
Act for purpose of ascertaining the
intent for which the legislature
enacted the Act.
The preamble of the
Act is reproduced hereinbelow 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 forcibly
dispossession of allottees and settlees
of public land generate problems and
cause unnecessary harassment to
bona fide allottee/settlees, raiyats or
occupants
WHEREAS, such
disputes with respect to raiyati land or
public land alotted in favour of
different classes of allottees are
unnecessarily occupying major space
of Civil Courts and Hon'ble High
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
11/16
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 isdeemed 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
Jamaband, 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 Previleged
Persons Homestead Tenancy Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
12/16
1947.
(4) The Biher Bhoodan Yagna
Act, 1954,
(5) The Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Celling and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961,
(6) The Bilar 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 objective of
effective, efficacious and speedy
resolution of deputes"
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
13/16
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 facts of
the instant case is concerned, the case
of the respondent no. , on whose
application the proceedings under 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024
14/16
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 hereinabove, 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 20.05.2022 passed in Case NO.
17/2021-22by the D.C.L.R. , Dehri Rohtas being without jurisdiction, is not sustainable and is hereby quashed"
So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned, in the opinion of the Court, the same are similar to the facts of the case of Basudev Saw (supra). Herein also the petitioner through this ancestors claim to be khatiani raiyat. The petitioner was paying rent and was being granted rent receipts. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is neither an allottee nor a settlee of the land in question nor is the petitioner claiming right over the land in question an a result of the same having been settled under any one of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Bihar Land Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024 15/16 Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. Thus in the opinion of the Court the very application filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2017 under section 4(1)(h) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act 2009 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was not maintainable Consequently the onder dated 9.2.2018 (Annexure-4) passed in Land Dispute Case No. 9/2017-18 by the DCLR, Kahulgaon would without jurisdiction. As such the orders dated 8.10.2018/22.10.2018 (Annexure-5) passed in Misc. (BLDR) Case No. 2/1018-19 by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur as also the order dated 13.1.2020 (Annexure-8) pessed in B.LT. Case No. 172 of 2019 by the Bihar Land Tribunal Patna would also not be sustainable. As such the order dated 9.2.2018 (Annexure-4), order dated 8.10.2018/22.10.2018 (Annexure-5) and order dated 13.1.2020 (Annexure-8) are all set aside The writ application stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief."
20. The aforesaid facts/details as also a perusal of 'the 2009 Act' would clearly answer to the original question Patna High Court CWJC No.17154 of 2022 dt.01-04-2024 16/16 that was incorporated in the first paragraph of the writ petition. This Court thus holds that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj Rohtas definitely travelled beyond Section 4 of 'the 2009 Act' in passing the order in question and in that circumstances, the same needs interference.
21. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that he may be given liberty to approach the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance. The said liberty is always available to the aggrieved person(s) much less the petitioner herein.
22. The order dated 04.11.2022 passed in Land Dispute Case No. 30/2022-23 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Rohtas stands quashed.
23. The writ petition is allowed. No cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 03.04.2024 Transmission Date