UMA SHANKAR TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 7-6-1985 (Annexure-5) which has been passed by the Superintendent of Municipal Survey, Purnea (Respondent No. 3) in appeal Case No. 18/82.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his father late Mukhlal Tiwary was a purohit of Raj Banaili and in consideration of the service rendered by his father 8 decimals of lands were settled with him in the year 1943 by Raj Benaili by fixing certain rent. The alleged rent receipts have been filed as Annexure-1 series. It is claimed that the said portion of land was a part of plot No. 333 which was subsequently carved out and numbered as new Survey plot No. 206/606. It has further been claimed that the right of the petitioner stands duly established by the letter dated 16-4-1976 written by the Additional Collector, Purnea. (Annexure-2) wherein it has been stated that at present Khas Mahal has no concern with the disputed lands. It has also been submitted that a Land Encroachment Case being L. E. Case No. 456 of 1979 80 which was initiated against the petitioner in respect of the lands in question had been dropped by the D.C.L.R. Purnea, by his order dated 17-1-1983, which is Annexure-3 to the application.

(3.) During the municipal survey the lands in question were recorded in the name of the State of Bihar and the petitioner was shown at "Awaidh Dakhalkar." The petitioner having learnt about the aforesaid facts tiled an objection before the Assistant Superintendent of Municipal Survey (Objection of Purnea, Municipality (Respondent No. 4), which was registered as Objection case No. 137 of 1978. It seems that the State of Bihar had also filed an Objection, which was registered as Objection case No. 259 of 1978. Both the Objection cases were heard together and after hearing the petitioner, the State of Bihar as also the District Board, Purnea, and the Public Works Department, the Respondent No. 4 came to the conclusion that new plot No. 206/606 belongs to the State of Bihar. But in the same breath he held that keeping in view the settlement, the petitioner is in possession and, therefore, the lands should be recorded in hia name. Against this order, the State preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 3, who, inter alia, has held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate that he had taken the lands in question on lease from any competent authority. In this view of the matter by his order dated 7-6-198S he set aside the older as contained in Annexure '4'and by allowing the appeal of .the State he directed for recording the lands in the name of State of Bihar (Khas Mahal). This order is Annexure-5 to this writ application.