Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: basgit parcha in Mithilesh Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 January, 2023Matching Fragments
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Date : 12-01-2023 Heard Ms. Anju Mishra, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.N. Tiwary for the respondent no.5 and Mr. Anisul Haque for the State.
The order under challenge is dated 11.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 6008 of 2009 whereby the order passed by the Collector, Madhubani in Miscellaneous (Basgit Parcha) Case Patna High Court L.P.A No.1660 of 2016 dt.12-01-2023 No. 25 of 2006-07 / 07 of 2007-08, cancelling the Basgit Parcha issued to the appellant, has been affirmed.
The learned Single Judge, while affirming the order passed by the Collector cancelling the Basgit Parcha issued in favour of the appellant, found that the land in question belonged to one Mahanth Madan Mohan Das and Uday Kant Jha, the writ petitioner, was his employee. This was the relationship between the ancestor of the appellant (the appellant is the nephew of Uday Kant Jha who has preferred this appeal after the death of Uday Kant Jha and his wife) which was the reason for possession of land with the ancestor of the appellant.
Pursuant thereto, the order by the Collector was passed, holding that the ancestor of the appellant was not entitled for Basgit Parcha for the reason that the land belonged to the Government and not to any Zamindar and while the time the Zamindari rights remained vested with the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1660 of 2016 dt.12-01-2023 Ex-Zamindar, there was no settlement in favour of the writ petitioner/Uday Kant Jha.
True it is that provisions of Section 21 of the Act could be invoked for transaction post the amendment of 1989 i.e. 25.09.1989, but in the present case, the Basgit Parcha granted to the ancestor of the appellant is non-est in the eyes of law, as there was no existing jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant with anybody.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1660 of 2016 dt.12-01-2023 Mere statement of the appellant that he does not have any idea about such Parcha having been granted to respondent no.5, would be of no avail to the appellant.
Thus, on the issue of the Basgit Parcha in favour of the ancestor of the appellant being non-est in the eyes of law and the land in question having been settled with private respondent no.5 not having been questioned in any proceeding whatsoever, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.