SURYODEO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.2.1995 passed by the Circle Officer, Raghunathpur, by which the application filed by respondent No. 4 for issuance of Basgitparcha with respect to 6 decimals land of plot No. 1216 khata No. 149, of village Usuribujurg in BPPHT Act case No. 13 of 1994-95 has been allowed and direction has been issued for issuance of parcha in favour of respondent No. 4. Further prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the order dated 6.11.2001 passed by the Collector, Siwan, in BPPHT Act case No. 290 of 1999 in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 who is practitioner of Ayurvedic Medicine, filed an application before the Circle Officer, Reghunathpur, on 10.2.1995 stating that the land of khata No. 131, plot No. 1216 measuring 7 dhoors is in his possession for continuous 12 years and he is residing over the land after constructing a house. As such, Basgitparcha may be issued in his favour with respect to these lands. In his petition he has also stated that the land was recorded in the revisional survey khatiyan in the name of Meghu who died issueless and now it is an abundant land. Since he has no other land parcha be issued in his favour. The Circle Officer without initiating a proceeding on the same day stated that he received the report of Halka Karamchari through the Circle Inspector with respect to the land and directed to issue general notice. The order-sheet dated 20.2.1995 shows that service report of the notice has been received. No objection was filed and on 28.2.1995 the final order was passed by the Circle Officer for issuance of Basgitparcha in favour of respondent No. 5 in respect of survey plot No. 1216 khata No. 149 measuring 7 dhoors under Bihar Priviledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act.

(3.) Petitioners' case is that this land was recorded in the name of Meghu. He died issueless. As such, it was inherited by Phulchand and Mulchand, who were sons of his brother, Kodai Kalwar. Subsequently, Partition suit No. 73 of 1971 was filed by the heirs of Phulchand which ended in compromise. 8 dhoors of plot No. 1216 was allotted to the branch of Phulchand and the rest was allotted to the branch of Mulchand as per compromise. Subsequently, a Partition suit No. 95 of 1990 was filed by the heirs of Phulchand. The suit was also compromised and the land was allotted to share of Kanhaiya Sah. He constructed a shop on the disputed land and let it out to the tenant. Later on, Kanhaiya Sah transferred 4 dhoors within plot No. 1216 to petitioner No. 1 through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1989. Again he transferred remaining 2 dhoors of his share in the same plot in favour of petitioner No. 2 through registered sale deed dated 16.1.1990. Respondent No. 4 is resident of Jehanabad and he has his house and landed property there. He wanted to start his medical practice at village Usuribujurg. He has been running his practice in the house of Gopalji Sonar. He cultivated acquaintance with petitioner No. 1. Since the house of Gopalji Sonar was demolished he requested petitioner No. 1 to permit him to run his clinic in his aforesaid shop for some period till the house is constructed. Subsequently, when petitioner No. 1 asked him to vacate the premises, he filed a criminal case against petitioner No. 1 and during the course of investigation he revealed that Basgitparcha has been issued in his favour with respect to 7 dhoors land of plot No. 1216 in BPPHT Act case No. 13 of 1995, It has been submitted that the entire proceeding of BPPHT Act case No. 13 of 1995 was illegal and conducted in violation of Section 4 as well as Rule 5 of the Bihar Priviledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. The petitioners were not impleaded as a parties. No enquiry was conducted as provided under Rule 5 of the Bihar Priviledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules. The so called enquiry was conducted by Halka Karamchari which is against the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Priviledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Under Section 4 it has been provided that enquiry should be conducted by the Collector himself or by an officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector. In the present case, from the order-sheet it is apparent that Halka Karamchari had conducted enquiry and simple recommendation has been made by the Circle Inspector. The order passed by the Circle Officer was challenged by the petitioners before the Collector, Siwan, which was numbered as BPPHT Act case No. 290 of 1999. The Collector, Siwan, without considering any of the evidence and documents produced by the petitioners dismissed his revision affirming the order passed by the Circle Officer.