SAMSHAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Circle Officer, Araria, being order dated 27.04.2006, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, as affirmed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Araria by order dated 27.05.2009, as contained in Annexure-3. By the aforesaid order, the private-respondents have been declared to be raiyat consequent to being occupancy raiyat of the land which the petitioners claim. The private-respondents have appeared. Parties have been heard and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) Petitioners state that the private-respondents have filed an application for being declared as raiyat consequent to them being occupancy raiyat in terms of Section-48 D of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter in brevity 'Act'). Petitioners had purchased the land. They allege that they were not made parties to the proceedings. They also allege that they had tried to intervene in the proceedings but their intervention was not considered. There was no local inspection. Their last contention is that the order of the Circle Officer directing the private-respondents to pay 20% of the rent payable by the raiyat to the State for making them raiyat is not correct, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghunth Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2007 3 PLJR 769.

(3.) Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must substantially fail. It may be noted that as per the petitioners they had purchased the land from the recorded raiyat on 06.12.2005. From the order-sheet of the Circle Officer, it is clear that the application under Section-48 D of the Act by the private-respondents was filed on or before 25.11.2005, which is the first date of the order-sheet. Thus, when the application under Section-48 D of the Act was filed the petitioners had no right in respect of the land. Their purchase was subsequent. Thus, to say that petitioners were necessary party is not correct. Then, it is contended that petitioners' intervention was not considered. In this connection, I may first note the order dated 13.02.2006 of the Circle Officer. He clearly noticed that the raiyat informed the Court that he has sold the land. He further noticed that the intervention has been made and parties have appeared. Thus, it is wrong to say that presence of the intervener was not noted. Order-sheet would thereafter show that reports of physical inspection was received. They were on record. The Circle Officer after accepting the report passed an order in favour of the private-respondents under Section-48 D of the Act. There does not appear to be any dispute that the petitioners had not protested in that Court on this aspect that the report was misconceived, wrong or without notice to them. The Circle Officer then passes an order that the rent payable being Rs.25.00 per annum of the land which is admeasuring about 1.68 acres, be transferred to the private-respondents for a mere sum of Rs.1200.00. A ridiculous situation to say the least. The respondent Circle Officer has totally misconstrued the provisions of Section-48 D of the Act in relation to the amount payable to the raiyat. Section-48 D of the Act has to be read with the Bihar Tenancy Rules as amended in 1992. The amendment provides the forum in which the application under Section-48 D of the Act has to be filed and it clearly states that the person has to pay 24 times of the rent of the holding which the raiyat may be entitled which clearly denotes that it is the rent which the 'bataidar' or under raiyat is liable to pay the raiyat and not the raiyat is required to pay to the State. This is what was decided in the case of Raghunth Prasad Singh and to that extent the order of the Circle Officer cannot be sustained.