SITARAMSAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 20 4-1983 passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar Chapra, in Jamabandi Case No. 15 of 1982-83 as contained in Annexure '8/i' to the writ application by which Jamabandi in question has been cancelled as also for quashing the notice dated 25-5-1983 issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Jalalpur, directing the petitions to vacate the premises in question and, in case of failure on the part of the petitioners to do so, it will be done through the Government machineries and cost will be recovered from the petitioners.

(2.) The dispute relates to 5.25 decimals of land appertaining to khata No. 275, Khashra No. 305 situate at Takai Tole, Khodaibagh at Anchal Jalalpur in the district of Saran (Chapra). In respect of the said land Jamabandi No. 341 and 345 were created in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners. Before vesting the Manjha Sursond Estate was the Malik ot village Khodaibagh and the lands in question were Gair Majrua Malik land. According to the petitioners the disputed lands had been settled in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners by execution of two Sada pattas dated 1-7-1945 and 29-6-1950. It is the claim of the petitioners that said Sada Pattas were executed by Sri Jaideva Lal and Rameshwar Prasad, the Managers of the Estate under the directions of their Malik. It is also claimed that since then the petitioners are in continuous possession over the said lands. According to the petitioners the two Jamabandies in question were created keeping in view the settlement by the ex-landlord and the rent receipts had been issued by the State of Bihar accordingly.

(3.) It appears that on certain report against the petitioners and their ancestors, the impugned proceedings for annulment of the Jamabandi was initiated and ultimately the final order as contained in Annexure 8/1 has been passed. Keeping in view the materials placed during the proceeding, the learned Subdivisional Officer has rejected the claims of the petitioners in respect of the settlement of the lands in favour of the petitioners and their ancestors.