Patna High Court - Orders
Abdul Sattar, vs The State Of Bihar on 31 January, 2020
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1406 of 2020
======================================================
Abdul Sattar, Son of Late Haji Maniruddin resident at Arrabari, Police
Station- Paharkatta - (Old- Pothia), District- Kishanganj, residing at present at
Ram Chandrapur, Police Station- Pranpur, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Kishanganj.
4. The Circle Officer, Pothia within the district of Kishanganj.
5. Tahjuna Khatoon, Widow of Late Shamsul
6. Badruddin, Son of Late Shamsul
7. Tasruddin, Son of Late Shamsul
8. Nasimuddin, Son of Late Shamsul
9. Hashimuddin, Son of Late Shamsul
10. Naushad, Son of Late Shamsul
11. Anwarul Son of Late Shamsul
12. Tehrun Nishan, Daughter of Late Shamsul
13. Ajmerun Nishan, Daughter of Late Shamsul,
No.5 to 13 residents of Village - Arrabari, Police Station- Paharkatta,
District- Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Prasad Ambastha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan (SC25)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2020Heard both sides.
The petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 9th of August, 2019(Annexure-5) passed by the learned Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No.1023 of 2016 by which the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by Patna High Court CWJC No.1406 of 2020(2) dt.31-01-2020 2/5 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj in Appeal No.8 of 2009 and the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Circle Officer in Case No.71 of 2007-08 have been set aside.
The admitted facts are that subject matters of the dispute are Plot Nos.3453, 3455, 3473, 3474, 3522, 3523, 3524, 3525 and 3536 of Khata No.227 measuring 1.53 acres of land situated in Mauja-Arrabari, P.S.-Paharkatta, District-Kishanganj. The respondent Nos.5 to 13 are descendants of Shamsul who admittedly executed a registered deed of Kabuliat and registered deed of Patta on 22.08.1967 granting the right to the petitioner(Md. Abdul Sattar) as under raiyat over the land in question measuring 2.53 acres. Abdul Sattar filed a petition under Section 48D of the B.T. Act before the Circle Officer praying for the declaration that he has acquired the right of raiyati over the land in question. The claim was contested by the landlord on the ground that the Kabuliat and Patta are forged and fabricated document and denied the possession of Abdul Sattar(the petitioner). Shamsul, the landlord asserted that Abdul Sattar has executed an Ekrarnama on 22.12.2007/27.12.2007 in favour of Maulvi Humanyu with definite averment that he had given the land in question for care and cultivation of Maulvi Humanyu in the year 1980. The Circle Officer on the basis of Patna High Court CWJC No.1406 of 2020(2) dt.31-01-2020 3/5 the report of the Circle Inspector declared that Abdul Sattar acquired the status of raiyati over only 1.53 acres of land out of 2.53 acres land in question. On appeal, the appellate authority has affirmed the order of the Circle Officer granting raiyati status to Abdul Sattar and dismissed the appeal. The landlord filed B.L.T. Case No.1023 of 2016 and the learned Chairman, B.L.T. by order dated 9th of August, 2019 held that the provisions of the B.T. Act do not recognize the creation of an under raiyati right of another person by an under raiyat himself and the right as under raiyat over land is not transferable unless the custom in this regard is pleaded and proved. It is further held that by Ekrarnama(Annexure-2), Abdul Sattar has definitely created right in favour of Maulvi Humanyu over the land in question to remain in possession in lieu of giving crops to him and this fact itself shows that Abdul Sattar has forfeited whatsoever right he had over the land in question as under raiyat in the year 1980 itself. Learned Chairman further held while setting aside the order of the Circle Officer as well as Sub Divisional Officer that Abdul Sattar claimed only under raiyati status over 1.53 acres out of 2.53 acres of land and, therefore, both the Courts i.e. Circle Officer as well as Sub-Divisional Officer make out a third case in order to grant raiyati right to Patna High Court CWJC No.1406 of 2020(2) dt.31-01-2020 4/5 Abdul Sattar only on the part of the land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner himself cultivated the land and grew crops till 1980 and thereby acquired occupancy interest in the land. By the passage of time, when the petitioner grew old and for the purpose of proper cultivation, his nephew and other family members started cultivating the lands but the petitioner continued to supervise the cultivation work. Maulvi Humanyu, the nephew of the petitioner always extended his help to the petitioner in cultivating and growing crops and, therefore, the order suffers from illegality but I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner himself stated in the petition that the landlord inducted him as sikmidar on the land in the year 1967 but he handed over the land for cultivation in the year 1980 by a deed of agreement and this fact itself shows that the petitioner lost the right and status of his being under raiyat of the land. An under raiyat cannot confer any status of under raiyat to a third party. Any violation of the terms and conditions by under raiyat who is holding the land on behalf of the raiyats make him liable for ejection from the lands and thus, I find that the learned Chairman has rightly set aside the order of the Circle Officer as well as the Sub-Divisional Patna High Court CWJC No.1406 of 2020(2) dt.31-01-2020 5/5 Officer holding the petitioner as under raiyat as he had lost the status of under raiyat on his own admission in the year 1980 after execution of Patta in favour of Humanyu.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/-
U