- (1.) This writ petition was filed for restraining the Respondents from interfering with the title and possession of the Petitioner. By amendment application (I.A. No. 2262 of 2010) the order dated 15/04/2010, passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, in Misc. Petition Case No. 5/2009 has also been challenged.
(2.) Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted as follows. The Petitioner is a private Religious Endowment created by ex-landlord Purnendu Narayan Singh by registered deed No. 6954 dated 13/09/1947 and it is being managed by its Sebayat- Sri Chandra Nath Singh, the eldest son of the said ex-landlord, through whom this writ petition has been filed. An Annulment proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Lands Reforms Act, 1950 (BLR Act) for annulling the said deed, being Annulment Case No. 31/73-74 was started. After due enquiry and recording evidence, the said case was disposed of by order dated 11/07/1978. The Collector found the Trust to be genuine and recommended for seeking approval of the Government for increase in the annuity amount to Rs. 7500/- per year. Under mistaken advise the Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was registered as SRA Case No. 1/1978 in the Court of District Magistrate, Dhanbad, who dismissed the appeal. Mr. Chandranath Singh (Petitioner) filed a writ petition, being WPC No. 6021/2008, against the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for removal of encroachments claiming ownership of the property in question. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8/10/2009, remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for passing order on the Petitioner's representation in accordance with law and till the decision was taken, the Deputy Commissioner was restrained from demolishing the structure on the property. Pursuant to the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 15/04/2010 (Annexure-9 to the amendment petition). As the Petitioner is the owner of the property in question, the orders passed for payment of annuity were wrong As the Trust deed was found genuine, there was no occasion for sending the matter to the government for confirmation under Section 21 of the BLR Act. He relied on (1996) 5 SCC 499-Upendra Narain Singh etc., 1978 IV BBCJ 489- The Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. Etc., 1990 (1) PLJR 165 Sri Rama Prasad Singh etc. and 2002 (2) BBCJ V 375 Shyam Bihari Prasad etc.
(3.) Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel appealing for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted as follows. The Trust deed in question, did not confer ownership and it appears that only an arrangement was made for the purpose of meeting the expenses of service and puja of the deities from the income of the property. This forged and fabricated deed was prepared on 13/09/2007 to defeat the provisions of BLR Act after the lands vested in the Government w.e.f. 01/01/1946. The eldest son of the ex-landlord (Chandra Nath Singh, Petitioner) was made the Sebayat. Even in the Trust deed it is mentioned that the Sebayat will have no right to transfer the property in any manner whatsoever, which also shows that the ownership of the land was not transferred. In the said order dated 11/07/1978 itself, the Collector clearly found and held that the Trust property vested in the Government under BLR Act. At best the Petitioner was held entitled to annuity, which was increased and recommendation was made for approval of the amount by the government. The Collector also considered the earlier decision dated 10/08/1963 passed by the then Land Reforms Deputy Collector. The Collector ultimately recommended for increasing the amount of annuity and clearly held that the property belongs to the Government. The Petitioner filed appeal only for enhancement of the annuity amount, and he did not challenge that part of the order by which it was held that the property vested and belongs to the government. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by order dated, 03/02/1982. The said orders passed on 11/07/1978 and 03/02/1982, became final between the parties and the Petitioner cannot be allowed to take 'U' turn claiming ownership over the property after about 30 years. The lands in question are the government land and the State Government has been in possession thereof where a Government Office, Market and Park are being constructed. The land in question is vast land of about 68 acres. Encroachments were removed on 09/12/2008. One Milkman- Dadan Yadav, holding 'Khatal' over part of the land in question, filed a suit and prayed for injunction but the same was refused up to the Appellate Court. (Annexure-D).;