NAWAL KISHORE DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for restraining respondent Nos. 5 to 8 permanently from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land, for quashing the conditions mentioned in the bail order, Annexure -7, and also for direction to produce and quash the order dated 20.8.1986 passed in Misc. Case No. 164/76 -77 and also to disclose as to whether Misc., Case No. 205/80 -81 initiated at the instance of the petitioners under Section 22(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of surplus land) Act (hereinafter to he referred as the Ceiling Act) has been disposed of.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that one Gulam Fazle Rahman was owner of C.S. Plot No. 739, khata No. 484, area 2.13 acres. Sukar Turi, Budhu, Thaclu and Bania were shikmidars of the aforesaid laudGuiana Fazle Rahman was coming in possession through the aforesaid shikmidars. During Revisional Survey the shikmidars sold their shikmi right over 1.17 acres out of 2.13 acre land appertaining to C.S. plot No. 739 in favour of Bindyachal Dubey and Bijli Dubey by registered sale -deed dated 13.12.1956. They came in possession and acquired occupancy shikmi right over the purchased land. On 26.11.1959 Bijli Dubey sold his share of shikmi interest to Bindyachal Dubey and as such he became shikmidar of entire 1.17 acres of land. However, in the Revisional Survey his name could not be entered and the land had remained in the name of Sukar Turi and others as shikmidars. Subsequently, in 1967 partition took place in the family and 78 decimals out of disputed land fell in the share of Bindyachal Dubey and 39 decimals fell in the share of petitioner No. 1.

(3.) A land teiling proceeding bearing No. 164/76 -77 was initiated against the wife of Gulam Fazle Rahman. The landlord voluntarily surrendered about 21.43 acres of land including C.S. plot No. 739, khata No. 484 and, accordingly, the said land was acquired under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act and on 21.8.1976 notification to the aforesaid effect was published. The petitioners had no knowledge about the aforesaid proceeding. However, in 1980 the petitioners received notice issued by the Addl. Collector in Dispossession case No. 130/80 -81 initiated at the instance of respondent No. 5 and Dispossession case No. 134/80 -81 initiated at the instance of respondent No. 6 to show -cause. The petitioners on receipt of notice filed a petition in original ceiling case No. 164/76 -77 claiming for settlement of the disputed land in their favour under Section 22(1) of the Ceiling Act. They also filed application reiterating the same facts and praying therein to settle the disputed land under Section 22(1) of the Ceiling Act before the Addl. Collector, respondent No. 3 on which Misc. case No. 205/80 -81 was registered. They also filed an application before the Collector, respondent No. 2, praying therein to cancel the order of Addl. Collector, respondent No. 3, directing to show -cause in dispossession case numbered as case No. 434/80 -81. The Collector vide order dated 3.5.1981 rejected the petition. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Member, Board of Revenue which was numbered as Board case No. 201/81. The said case was dismissed by the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue on 11.9.1991 as not maintainable, Annexure -2. In Ceiling case No. 164/76, a report was called for from the Circle Officer, Katihar. The Circle Officer submitted report dated 20.2.1984, Annexure -3, before the Sub -divisional Officer, Katihar recommending for settlement of the disputed land in favour of the petitioners. In the Municipal survey, which was finally published in 1985, the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Municipal records, Annexures -4 & 4/A. No objection was made against the entry in the Municipal survey. The petitioners, thereafter, thought that the matter had been set at rest. However, on 27.6.1992 respondent No. 2 along with police officials came to deliver possession of the disputed land to respondent Nos. 5 & 6. He also informed that petition under Section 22(1) of the Ceiling Act has already been rejected on 20.8.1986 and case No. 205/81 has been disposed of on 18.6.1986. However, possession could not be delivered to respondent Nos. 5 & 6. The petitioners filed application for certified copy of orders but the same could not be supplied to them. Respondent No. 5 lodged a case against the petitioners bearing Katihar P.S. Case No. 325/92 in which the petitioners were arrested. However, they were granted bail vide Annexure -7 with a condition that they will not go over the land until the matter is decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction and as such writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the reliefs as indicated above.