INDESHWAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of this application the sole petitioner died and has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives. This Court, for the sake of convenience, would refer the petitioner as the original writ petitioner. This application filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) to quash the order dated 20.8.1990 (Annexure-2) passed by the Respondent-Collector, Purnea in Misc. Case No.2/82-83 in purported exercise of power under section 49K of the Bihar Tenancy Act ( for short the ,,Act) and the order dated 22.04.1991 passed on appeal by the Respondent-Commissioner, Purnea Division in Revision Case No. 43/90-91 (Annexure-3).

(2.) FACTS A report dated 10.9.1982 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Bankmankhi, Purnea in respect of certain land(s) owned and possessed by the original writ petitioner. The said report formed the basis of initiation of a suo motu proceeding on 11.03.1983 by the Respondent-Collector vide Misc. Case No. 2/82-83. A notice (Annexure-1) was issued to the original writ petitioner to show cause as to why he be not evicted from different categories of land(s) spelt out therein and be resumed by the State under the provisions of the Act. The notice dealt with three categories of land held by the original writ petitioner. As per the notice, original writ petitioner had acquired certain land(s) detailed therein on the strength of ,,Ladavinama executed in favour of original writ petitioner by the person(s) who were protected tenant(s) within the meaning of the Act who were recorded as ,,Sikmidar in respect thereof. This was the first category of the land held by the original writ petitioner. The second category of land set out in the notice pertained to those lands which was/were acquired by the original writ petitioner from the protected tenant(s)/person(s) by reason of decree(s) passed in rent execution proceeding/suit(s) instituted against the protected tenant(s). The third category of the lands were the lands which were purchased by the original writ petitioner from the protected landholder/tenant.

(3.) IT appears to be an admitted case of the party that the land covered by category (II) was recorded in the name of the protected tenant as Sikmidar. IT is settled beyond cavil that a Sikmidar is an under raiyat and the term raiyat does not include an under raiyat. Reference in this regard may be made to AIR 1976 Patna page 349. (Ramadhar Upadhya and Anr. Vs. Baldeo Ahir and Ors.). If a Sikmidar against whom the rent execution proceeding(s) was filed was not raiyat within the meaning of the Act, then the conditions/rigours provided under section 49(M)(2)(a) of the Act would not be applicable. The authority under the Act completely failed to consider this aspect of the matter which had bearing on the issue. The conclusion arrived at by the Respondent-Collector in the impugned order (Annexure-2) affirmed by the respondent appellant authority in Annexure-3 is, therefore, not sustainable in law.