GODHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although this matter has been listed under the heading 'For orders (on petitions)' praying for ad-interim injunction pending hearing of appeal but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this appeal has been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Munger in Title Suit No. 89 of 2013, whereby the trial court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the appellant as a plaintiff in the court below under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Section 151 thereof.

(2.) This case has had a chequered history but since the matter is yet pending for consideration before the different courts/authorities, this Court would restrain itself from expressing any opinion. Suffice it to say that the suit property was leased out in favour of one Chandra Mohan Dutta. The suit property is a house situated at Plot No. 484, Khata No. 53, Jamabandi No. 52, Tauzi No. 1333 in the town and district of Munger admeasuring 6 kathas 1 dhur. The original lease-holder, Chandra Mohan Dutta deceased and was survived by his daughter-in-law Gita Dutta, the widow from his son. An application was filed by the said Gita Dutta as the surviving heir and legal representative of late Chandra Mohan Dutta for renewal of lease giving rise to Lease Renewal Case No. 267 of 1991-92. It is not in dispute that the said case is yet pending before the District Khas Mahal Authorities. While the renewal matter was pending the said Gita Dutta executed a deed of part performance in favour of Sunaina Devi, the wife of the appellant on 24.2.1989 for transfer of the leasehold rights of the suit property in her favour and also put her in possession. As the performance was not completed hence Sunaina Devi instituted a suit bearing Title Suit No. 72 of 2000 requiring the said Gita Dutta to fulfill her obligation under the deed. Gita Dutta appeared in the case and filed written statement. Sunaina Devi expired during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by the present appellant in the capacity of her husband. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff requiring his name to be substituted in place of Gita Dutta in the Lease Renewal Case No. 267 of 1991-92 which is yet pending. Following the decree aforementioned, the plaintiff filed an application before the authorities under the Khas Mahal Manual requiring his name to be substituted in place of Gita Dutta which application was filed on 25.1.2006 in the light of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 72 of 2000. The Khas Mahai Officer, Munger vide notice bearing Memo No. 1168/07-08 dated 8.11.2007 required the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,08,618/- by way of Salami for the leasehold premises and also deposit the annual rent of Rs. 18,172/-. The total amount being Rs. 9,26,790/-. The demand was raised even while charging the plaintiff of having violated the conditions under the Khas Mahal Manual and was received by the plaintiff on 23.11.2007. The notice also envisages drawing of proceeding on the failure of the plaintiff to ensure compliance of the demand. The said notice was followed by another notice issued on 30.4.2008 requiring the plaintiff to ensure compliance as also to deposit the papers together with 'No Objection Certificate' from the lease-holder. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff neither deposited the demand raised under the notice nor filed the 'No Objection Certificate'. The matter rested there when the plaintiff after a lapse of four years received another notice requiring him to explain his possession over the suit property which notice bears Memo No. 351 dated 7.9.2012. A reply was filed by the plaintiff on 24.9.2012 enclosing the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 72 of 2000, his application filed in the Lease Renewal Case No. 267 of 1991-92 and other documents. The Collector, Munger vide order dated 26.11.2012 purported to have been passed under the provisions of Bihar Khas Mahal Policy, 2011, in Encroachment Case No. 6 of 2012-13 held the plaintiff to be encroacher over the suit property and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Munger to initiate a proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Following the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Collector, Munger, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Munger initiated proceedings under the Act giving rise to Encroachment Case No. 12 of 2012 and which is pending. On the other hand the order dated 26.11.2012 of the Collector, Munger was questioned by the plaintiff before this Court in CWJC No. 22547 of 2012 and which was permitted to be withdrawn to enable the plaintiff to question the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. In compliance of the order passed by this Court in the writ application an appeal is stated to have been filed by the plaintiff before the Commissioner, Munger Division bearing Khas Mahal Appeal No. 144 of 2013 which again is pending. While the matters were pending before different authorities, a notice was issued by the Collector, Munger for putting the suit property in auction which notice is dated 13.4.2013.

(3.) In the circumstances set forth, the suit in question was filed, seeking the following reliefs:--