KAPLESHWAR 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.

(2.) 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.) The original writ petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. By the impugned order dated 20.8.1990 (Annexure-2), the Respondent-Collector rejected the cause shown by the original writ petitioner and directed for his eviction from those lands and resumption thereof. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal under section 49-O of the Act was filed which was registered as Revision Case No. 43/90-91. The appellate court affirmed the order of the Respondent-Collector in respect of the first two categories of the lands. While conceding the claim of the landholder that the lands falling under category III were purchased by him after obtaining due permission from the competent authority as required under the Act, the matter was remanded for making enquiry with respect to adherence of the procedures of grant of such permission by the Respondent Circle Officer. Aggrieved thereby, present writ application has been filed.