- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of Basgit Purcha for 0.08 acres of plot no. 75 pertaining to Khata no. 39, Mouza - Lowapidi, Circle - Silli, District -Ranchi in favour of respondent no. 4, Mostt Chhutu Mian Gorain. Settlement of land has been made in terms of provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act 1947, which was enacted to make better provisions on certain subjects relating to the law of landlord and tenant in respect of homestead held by certain classes of persons in rural areas of the State of Bihar. Definitions: - Clause 2(j) defines "privileged tenant" as a person who holds homestead under another person and is or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent for such homestead to such person. Under Clause 2(i) "privileged persons" means a person, who is not a proprietor, tenure -holder, under tenure holder or Mahajan and who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. Respondent no. 4 made an application for settlement of land for homestead on that basis before Circle Officer alleging that she is residing in village Lowapiri, PS - Silli, District - Ranchi Khata no. 39, Plot no. 75 over 0.08 acres since last 60 years and she has no other land except this land. After registration of case bearing no. 11/91 -92, Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector were directed to enquire into the matter and submit their report with map. Notices were also issued to the land owner. One Jaipal Singh, descendent of khatiyani raiyat, who appeared on behalf of Surendra Mahato for adjournment and later on appeared on behalf of Angad Mahto, petitioner herein and filed objection on 9.10.1991. After consideration of the enquiry report and the objection filed by Angad Mahto, application of original respondent no.4 was found fit for Basgit Purcha as she was living on the said plot for last 60 years. Basgit Purcha was issued on 13.12.1991, while the petitioner has approached this Court in 2002 after 11 years without even exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal before the Collector of the District.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that original respondent no.4 is owning more than 1 acre of land as per the submission made in para 13 of the writ petition. The copy of the khatian prepared in Bangla language and translated in Hindi is enclosed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. However, on specific query made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither from the averments from the writ petition nor from the copy of khatian, it is shown that any land described therein was in the name of respondent no. 4 or her ancestor and was more than one acre.
(3.) State respondent have also defended the issuance of Basgit Purcha, so is the respondent no. 4 through her counsel by filing counter affidavit.;