RASHID MIAN Vs. BHIN TURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner, praying, that, an order incorporated in Annexure 1, dated the 14th July, 1970, passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara, may be quashed. By that order, the Sub-divisional Officer has directed the eviction of the writ petitioner from Plot No. 1358, appertaining to A. K. J. No. 33 of village Barmundi.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. Respondent No. 1 of this Court filed an application before the circle officer, Jamtara, which was forwarded to the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara, for restoration of Plot No. 1358 of A. K. J. No. 33. It was alleged, that, the land was agricultural land and it had been fraudulently occupied by the writ petitioner and, therefore, restoration should be made. The case of the writ petitioner was, that, the grandfather of present respondent No. 1, named Jia Turi, had vast area of land in different jotes and in different villages, comprising about 100 bighas, and he was unable to cultivate the lands and hence most of the lands had remained fallow and uncultivated. Jia Turi had died about 29 years ago and, at the time of his sradh the writ petitioner had supplied articles for the sradh ceremony and had obtained Plot No. 1358 in Khorfa settlement from Jia Turfs son, named Mahabharat. It was alleged, that, in 1959 Mahabharat and his co-sharers had instituted a title suit for getting back the disputed land, amongst others, and the suit was compromised, acknowledging the writ petitioner's possession and, therefore, the petition for restoration was not maintainable. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Sub-divisional Officer has held, that, the writ petitioner had fraudulently occupied the disputed land and that his case, that, Mahabharat had given the disputed land in Khorfa Settlement, as Jia Turi had allowed all his lands to remain fallow, was not acceptable at all. In such circumstances, the order of eviction followed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged, that, the Sub-divisional Officer has not considered the entire evidence on the record, including the Khorfa rent receipts and if all the evidence had been considered in accordance with law, the writ petitioner's possession would have been accepted. But, it is clear, that, no part of the evidence on record was lost sight of by the Sub-divisional Officer, as he has mentioned the documents produced before him, including the Khorfa rent receipts. For rejecting the writ petitioner's case of possession he has given his reasons based on the evidence and the circumstances of the case. If in a summary proceeding the Sub-divisional Officer has refused to accept the case of long possession of the writ petitioner, we do not think that we should interfere in our writ jurisdiction. The writ application, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but without costs.