JAGDISH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and Annexure-10 passed by the Settlement Officer, Saharsa with respect to the claim of the Petitioner for correction of entry made in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan published on 10.1.1986 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application.

(2.) The Revisional Survey entry shows the name of Kapoor Chand Mukhiya, father of Nathuni Mukhiya as the owner of 25 decimals of land. The case of the Petitioner is that he had purchased 25 decimals of land vide Annexure-1 from Nathuni Mukhiya with respect to several plots of land. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the entry in the revisional survey khatiyan, filed a case under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Respondent 2nd set and the Respondent 3rd set in the present writ application appeared suo motu in the proceedings under Section 106 of the Act, Respondent 3rd set claiming 11 decimals of land, whereas Respondent 2nd set claiming 3 decimals of land. The claim of the Respondent 2nd set is the subject matter of the present dispute. The case under Section 106 of the Act was filed in the year 1986 and the Respondent 2nd set and the Respondent 3rd set appeared after a great delay in the year 2004 to put forward their claims. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-9, the Petitioner was granted 11 decimals of land from the eastern side of Khata No. 89, Khesra No. 1132, whereas 11 decimals of land were granted to the Respondent 3rd set from the western side and the Respondents 3rd set were granted 3 decimals of land from the extreme eastern side of the plot. It was further observed by the Assistant Settlement Officer that the father of the Petitioner had 3 decimals of land running in his name, which was allotted to the Petitioners, thereby trying to justify the claim of the Petitioner that their grievances were met by the order impugned. The Settlement Officer upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer for the same reasons.

(3.) The Petitioner's claims that during the pendency of the revisional application before the Settlement Officer, the Petitioner and the Respondents 2nd set agreed to compromise the matter with the help of the members of the village panchayat. Accordingly, on 12.3.2007, the parties i.e. the Petitioner and the Respondents 2nd set, agreed that the Petitioner will transfer 7 dhurs of land to the Respondents 2nd set and the Respondents 2nd set in turn would give up the claim over 3 decimals of land. The Petitioner in accordance with the compromise executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Respondents 2nd set. After the order of the Revisional Court, the Respondents 2nd set refused to give up the said 3 decimals of land and has thereby breached the conditions of the compromise.