Patna High Court
Uday Kant Jha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2015
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6008 of 2009
===========================================================
Uday Kant Jha, son of late Bhagat Jha, resident of village- Gangdwar, Police
Station- Andhara Tharhi, District- Madhubani.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, Madhubani.
3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani.
4. The Circle Officer, Andhara Tharhi, District- Madhubani.
5. Most. Jaleshwari Devi wife of late Bishwanath Singh, resident of village-
Gangdwar, P.S. Anchara Tharhi, District Madhubani.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh
For the Respondent No.1 to 4: Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, AAG-IX
Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-IX
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwary
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-08-2015
Heard.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
04.09.2008/ 06.10.2008 (Annexure-1) passed in Miscellaneous (Basgit parcha) Case No.25 of 2006-07/ 07 of 2007-08 by the respondent District Collector, Madhubani, whereby Basgit Parcha issued to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, with respect to plots of land bearing khesra no. 1944 area 5 decimals and Khesra No. 1945 area 5 decimals total area 10 decimals, both appertaining to Khata No. 269 situate at village- Gangdwar, Anchal Andhara Tharhi, District Madhubani (In short "land in question") has been cancelled and set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the lands in question was originally belonging to Ex. landlord Mahanth Madan Mohan Das and father of the petitioner was his employee. Therefore, he was allowed to occupy the lands in Patna High Court CWJC No.6008 of 2009 dt.11-08-2015 2/4 question and since then he had been coming in possession over the same. However, he has fairly conceded that at the time of vesting of Zamindari, in the return filed by the Ex. landlord this land was not shown to have been settled in favour of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, it vested in the State of Bihar. It is contended that since the petitioner was coming in possession over the lands in question, he filed an application before the respondent Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Andhra Tharhi for issuance of Basgit parcha under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (In short "1947 Act"). Accordingly, Case No. 18 of 1984-85 was started and finally Basgit parcha, as contained in Annexure-6, was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that aforesaid Basgit Parcha (Annexure-6) was earlier cancelled by the respondent District Collector, Madhubani by order dated 28.08.2006, but without giving any notice to him. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed C.W.J.C. No. 526 of 2007 before this Court, which was finally allowed by order dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure-10) on the ground of violation of the principles of nature justice and the matter was remitted back to the respondent District Collector, Madhubani for deciding the matter afresh after giving notice to the parties. It is next contended that in view of the aforesaid remand order, the respondent District Collector issued notice to the parties and after hearing them, has passed the impugned order cancelling the Basgit Parcha issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. The matter has been contested by the respondents and counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 4 disputing the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. In order to appreciate the issue raised in the present proceeding, it would be relevant to mention here that 1947 Act is a Patna High Court CWJC No.6008 of 2009 dt.11-08-2015 3/4 benevolent legislation for protecting the interest of privileged tenant if he/she is evicted from his/her homestead by the landlord. Under the scheme of 1947, Act, for issuance of Basgit parcha the claimant is required to prove that he/she is the „privileged person‟ under the meaning of section 2(i) of 1947 Act and he is also privileged tenant under the meaning of Section 2 (J) of 1947 Act, and he holds homestead under another person and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Thereafter, the claim of the claimant is required to be decided as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 (In short "1948, Rules").
6. Now, coming to the present case, as per the pleadings of the writ petitioner himself, the land in question vested in the State of Bihar after vesting of the Zamindari, as in the return filed by the Ex. landlord the petitioner or his father was not shown as the settlee. If the land had vested in the State of Bihar, then there was no question of relationship of landlord or tenant between the petitioner and the State of Bihar under the scheme of 1947 Act. In absence of such a relationship, petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under the provisions of the 1947, Act and 1948, Rules, was completely misconceived and untenable. This was contrary to the scheme of Act, 1947. For the lands belonging to the State of Bihar Basgit parcha under the provisions of 1947 Act could not have been issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent District Collector has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent Anchal Adhikari, without approval of the competent authority, had illegally issued Basgit Parcha in favour of the writ petitioner, but no such parcha could have been issued with respect to the lands in question under the provisions of the Act, 1947.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6008 of 2009 dt.11-08-2015 4/4
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the order of the respondent District Collector, has not been able to show that Basgit Parcha could have been legally issued in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of 1947, Act and the Rules made thereunder, since the lands in question had been vested in the State of Bihar. If the impugned order passed by the respondent District Collector is interfered with on any ground, then that would revive a patently illegal basgit parcha procured by the petitioner on certain extraneous consideration from the respondent Anchal Adhikari.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.09.2008/ 06.10.2008 (Annexure-1) passed in Miscellaneous (Basgit parcha) Case No.25 of 2006-07/ 07of 2007-08 by the respondent District Collector, Madhubani, cancelling Basgit parcha of the petitioner with respect to the lands in question.
9. In above view of the matter, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/-
U