MANOJ KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not seek to file a reply. With consent of the parties, the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself. The dispute lies in a very narrow compass. The dispute relates to about 2 Bighas, 7 Kathas, 10 Dhurs and 35 Dhurkis of land, appertaining to Municipal Survey No. 10987, in the town of Darbhanga, recorded in the Survey Khata in the name of Maharaja Rameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, as the landlord and described as Bakabje Malik.

(2.) The order and the action under challenge is that of the Collector of the District-Darbhanga, whereby in purported exercise of powers under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the jamabandi that was created in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. In short, the case of the State is that this land was transferred by Maharaja Kameshwar Singh in the name of his minor nephew Raj Kumar Subeshwar Singh by registered deed on 2.8.1948. That transfer, being after 1.1.1946, was to be annulled in view of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this very issue in respect of this very settlement was taken-up by the Collector, Darbhanga way back, immediately after vesting of Jamindari, and he had made a recommendation for the settlement to be set aside as it was in relation to a tank in which the general public had a right. To this recommendation the Divisional Commissioner had acceded. It was then sent to the State for approval of the annulment. The opinion of the Land Reforms Commissioner was sought for, who clearly opined that the land being settled, was less than five acres, out of mutual love and affection by the ex-proprietor to his minor nephew and, as such, it should not be annulled. When the matter came before the Government, the Government rejected the recommendation of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner and held that the settlement should not be annulled and refused to grant approval. All this was done in Case No. 103 of 1954-55 of the District of Darbhanga (Revenue Department File No. E/XVII-331/57). All these proceedings are evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition and Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.