Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In this writ application the writ petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for quashing the 'Basgit Parchas' issued by the respondent No. 5 (Circle Officer, Ganwa, P.O. & P.S.--Ganwa, District - Giridih) in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 13 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under the provisions of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as an Act). According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are neither privileged persons nor privileged tenants within the meaning of the Act in relation to the Raiyati land belonging to the petitioners nor are they predecessors in Interest in any manner what so ever. The Basgit Parchas have been appended as Annexure-3 series in the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from taking possession of the land in question or from disturbing the possession of the petitioners in relation to the aforementioned lands,

2. The Basgit Parchas issued in the instant case and which have been annexed as Annexure-3 series, will go to show that the same have been issued in Form G under the provisions of Rule 5(5) of the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948. Sub-rule (5) authorises the Collector to prepare a record of homestead held by privileged tenants in Form G. In other words, the Act of issuing Basgit Parchas amounts to creating permanent tenancy, in relation to privileged tenants.

3. In the instant case, the petitioners have very emphatically stated that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are not privileged tenants nor privileged persons nor does the relationship of landlord and tenant exists inter se betwixt the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 7 to 13.

9. The petitioners have further stated that in the aforementioned Title Suit, the respondents filed a written statement, wherein they stated that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 were in possession of the disputed lands and that after completing all formalities, the Circle Officer (respondent No. 5) had granted Basgit Parchas to them under the Act. The details of the orders for which Basgit Parchas had been granted, have been mentioned in paras 20 to 22 of the writ application. The petitioners have also stated that having come to learn for the first time in the suit that Basgit Parchas have been issued, the petitioners withdrew the aforementioned suit on 4.12.1993 with liberty to file a fresh suit. After withdrawing the suit, the petitioners then filed the instant writ application on 8.12.1993.

12. From a perusal of para 7 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, it appears that the respondents have asserted the claim of the writ petitioners that they had no knowledge is a misconceived statement in as much as the Parchas were issued in two batches one in 1970-71 and second in 1975-76 and therefore, such statement is only an after thought. The respondents, however, have not been able to counter the statement made by the petitioners at paragraph 23 that they came to learn about the issuance of the Basgit Parchas when the written statement was filed in the Title Suit.