Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11-1996 in Basgit Parcha case No. 2 of 1996-97 properly recommendation for issuance of Basgit parcha in favour of the petitioner was cancelled without taking proper facts as well as proper prospective whereas the issuance of Basgit Parcha to the petitioner was/is legal and valid.

(iii) To restore the issuance of Basgit parcha by the learned Circle Officer Motihari on 1-11-1996 in basgit parcha case no. 1996-978 as accordance with law."

3. The petitioner's case in brief is that claiming himself to be a landless person, he applied for Basgit Parcha of 5 decimal land appertaining to khata no. 59, plot no. 480 situated in village Rupdih, P.S. Muffasil, District East Champaran, Motihari with an avernment that he was already in possession of the above-noted land. On his application, Basgit Parcha Case No. 2 of 1996-97 was initiated by the Circle Officer, East Champaran at Motihari and after issuing notice to the land holder, Jagdish Mahto inviting objection, Parcha was granted in favour of the petitioner on 01.11.1996 by the Circle Officer. Private respondent nos. 6 to 12 are lineal descendants of late Jagdish Mahto. The lineal descendants of late Jagdish Patna High Court CWJC No.3169 of 2017(5) dt.15-02-2025 Mahto filed Revenue Appeal No.15 0f 2000-01 stating that the Parcha was issued stealthily and after forged and fabricated service of notice upon the land-holder late Jagdish Mahto. As per averments of the respondents, late Jagdish Mahto had already died in the year 1983.

4. During inquiry, it came to light that the petitioner is not a landless person since he owns more than 1 acre of land and accordingly, he does not come under the definition of privileged person. During inquiry, it also came to light that already the petitioner was granted a Basgit Parcha of another Gairmajrua land and on this score also, he is not entitled for grant of Basgit Parcha. It also came to light that concealing these facts, the petitioner became successful in obtaining Basgit Parcha. It was the reason that the appellate authority as well as Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna cancelled the Basgit Parcha granted in favour of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the Collector was of the opinion that the Basgit Parcha was granted in favour of the petitioner after concealing some materials facts, the Collector should have remanded the case under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3169 of 2017(5) dt.15-02-2025

6. In my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reasons that the granting of the Basgit Parcha is itself ab initio void, as the petitioner does not come under the definition of the privileged person and he does not possess even the requisite qualifications for grant of Basgit Parcha.