Sk. Hijju @ Md. Hifzur Rahman & Ors vs Awadh Lal Sharma & Ors on 17 May, 2016
In the case of Lakhan Paswan & Ors. Vs. Shiwnandan Pd.
& Ors. reported in 2001(1) PLJR 174, the facts are that the disputed land
was belonging to Raghubans Mani Singh and Yaduban Mani Pd.
Singh who sold the same to Abu Singh by registered sale deed and
later on Abu Singh sold the land to Shivnandan Prasad. Shivnandan
Prasad purchased 2 acres 42 decimals of land which was in dispute in
connection with proceeding initiated under Section 48E of the B.T.
Patna High Court MA No.324 of 2013 dt.17-05-2016 27
Act. The plaintiff claimed that Mahanth of Nandiha Math namely
Garibanand Das has no concern with the said land. In that case some
of the persons, namely, Lakhan Paswan, Ram Bachchan Rai and Jang
Bahadur Prasad filed a Bataidari cases under Section 48E of the Act
claiming Bataidari right against Mahanth Garibanand Das of Nandiha
Math. The plaintiff and other purchasers filed an application for being
impleaded as party but the same was rejected by the Collector,
ultimately the case was decided in favour of the defendants Bataidars,
later on a civil suit was filed by Shivnandan Prasad claiming to be
rightful owner of the land, claiming that Lakhan Prasad and others did
not have any right and title or possession over the land. Under Raiyats
challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that Section
48F(4) of the Act prescribes that the order passed under Section 48E
of the Act or order of appeal under Section 48F attained finality, the
same shall not be called in question in the civil court and during
pendency of the proceeding, the civil court or the criminal court shall
not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. In that case, the suit was
filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession over the land
in question and claim of Bataidar was false. Claim was made by
Bataidar that their right as Bataidar has been decided in 48E
proceeding, in view of conclusive decision on account of the order
passed in 48E proceeding or order of appeal under Section 48F the
Patna High Court MA No.324 of 2013 dt.17-05-2016 28
Civil Court has not power to entertain the suit so much so cannot issue
injunction restraining the enforcement of the order. This court has
taken into account that plaintiffs were not made party or they were not
allowed to participate in the proceeding on consideration of facts and
circumstances of the case held that if the order is not duly made under
the Act, a suit is maintainable, only bar has been created under the
statute that no interim order would be passed staying the operation of
the order passed under the act. This Court after considering the facts
and provisions of statute, held that suit is maintainable. It would be
relevant to quote paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 22 which reads as
follows:-