KANCHAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.1.1998 (Annexure-5) passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Survey, Gaya (Respondent No. 3) by which an objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orrisa Municipal Survey Act, 1920 (hereinafter, "the Act") filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 has been allowed and their names have been entered in the survey record in place of the petitioners relating to Holding Nos. 15, 18 in Ward No. 1 corresponding to Old Municipal Survey Plot Nos. 8082, 7569 and 7567, as also the order dated 28.6.2000 (Annexure-6) passed by the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sri Radha Kuer wife of Sri Hari Krishna Das gifted the subject piece of land by registered deed dated 22.3.1980 in favour of her son Prabhat Kumar. After the death of Prabhat Kumar in a scooter accident on 29.6.1987, the names of his widow, two sons and a daughter, the present petitioners, filed Objection Case No. 148 of 1987 under Section 9 of the Act which came to be allowed in terms of order dated 13.6.1990 passed by the respondent No. 3 in their favour (Annexure-2) and the petitioners names directed to be entered in the Municipal Survey Khatiyan.

(2.) The petitioners also filed Eviction Suit No. 38/1990 before the Munsif 1st, Gaya against tenant, Brahmdeo Prasad, which was decreed in the petitioners' favour by judgment and decree dated 31.8.1996 holding the petitioners to be the landlord and not one Smt. Meena Devi as was being claimed on behalf of the said Brahmdeo Prasad. This finding was thereafter upheld in Title Appeal No. 70/96 in the judgment dated 27.2.99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gaya. The Second Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed on 23.6.99 by this Court in S.A. No. 135/99.

(3.) It appears that on 7.9.1994, a sale deed was executed and registered by the said Smt. Meena Devi, conveying the said piece of land in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who accordingly filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for recording their names in the Municipal Survey Khatiyan. The petitioners state that Smt. Meena Devi is not the wife of late Prabhat Kumar as she has been describing herself and never acquired the property as inheritance after his death. Consequently, the claim of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 based on the sale deed executed by her is not sustainable in law.