BHOLA PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.01.1992 as contained in Annexure-9, by which the Additional Collector, Munger has held that the petitioners have no right to hold a 'Hat' over the C.S. Plot No. 9, which is adjacent to Plot Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 21, where the State Government is now holding a 'cattle Hat'.

(2.) The dispute with respect to holding of a hat over plot no. 9 arose in the year 1950. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 11 of 1950/04 of 1953 in which he made a prayer that the defendants ( i.e. the Banaili Raj) and the defendants 2nd set i.e. the public in general, should be injuncted from holding a hat over plot no. 9 of village Tarapur. Apparently, the dispute arose because of the fact that the erstwhile Banaili Raj held a bi-weekly 'Hat' over plot nos. 10, 11, 13 and 21, which belongs to Banaili Raj. The Banaili Raj wanted to extend the area of operation of the hat and thus, extended the Hat to Plot No. 9, which led to the filing of the suit. The defendants 2nd Set, on the other hand, claimed that they had a right of easement over the lands, and as such, they were entitled to hold a Hat over plot No. 9. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed which led the petitioner to file Title Appeal No. 44 of 1954, which was disposed of by judgment dated 19th August, 1955. The respondents filed second appeal in the high Court, which was disposed of on 27th February, 1975.

(3.) The defendants? case is that the hat was being held from time immorial on the present site, which includes plot no. 9. The daily bazaar of fish was held over plot no. 89 which had nothing to do with what was popularly known as Tarapur Weekly Hat. It has been said that plot no. 9 was recorded in the survey records of rights in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs as 'Bhauli lands?. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have got the right only to appropriate use the fruits of the trees and he has no right to interfere with the holding of the 'Hat? over plot no. 9.