Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.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 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.

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.

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.