RAJ KISHORE Vs. COMMISSIONER GORAKHPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Engineer. P.W.D., Deoria issued an advertisement inviting tenders upto 28.2.2001 for letting out the right to realise tolls on Baikunthpur Ghat on Chhotigandak river. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid tender notice.

(2.) The seven petitioners claim that they are mallah/nishad by caste and have been running a ferry from time immemorial over the aforesaid ghat. They further claim that Baikunthpur Ghat was being managed by the fore-fathers of the petitioners from ages and their families are depended upon the same. In support of their claim, the petitioners rely upon khatauni of 1359-fasli of village Baikunthpur where the name of Bhujawan and others were recorded over Khata No. 270. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are descendants of Bhujawan. The petitioners further rely upon an order dated 18.9.1953 passed by the District Land Reforms Officer. Deoria and according to them this order recognises the right of Bhujawan to run a ferry. The contention of the petitioners is that the ownership of the ferry vests with them and as such, the Stale has got no right to interfere in their management and to let out the right to collect tolls on the said ferry.

(3.) Copy of the order dated 18.9.1953 passed by the District Land Reforms Officer, Deoria (filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is an incomplete copy. It is also not certified copy of the said order. A reading of the order shows that Sabhapati of the Gram Panchayat, Balkunthpur, had given some report against Bhujawan and others regarding management of the Baikunthpur Ghat. The order recites that "existing rights of the contractors of ferries will continue according to paragraph 8 (f) of Revenue (A) Department G.O. No. 1301-I-A/450-1950 dated March 20, 1952 and the existing contractor will continue." Towards the bottom of the order, there is an endorsement--copy forwarded to the existing contractor Sri Bhujawan to deposit due amount in treasury at once. This order shows that Bhujawan was working in the capacity of a contractor and it does not at all establish any proprietary right of Bhujawan over the ferry. The direction in the order to the effect that contractor Bhujawan should deposit the amount completely negatives the case of the petitioners that they had any hind of ownership right over the ferry.