HARGOBIND SINGH Vs. RAMBARAN PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHOUDHARY, J. 1. These two proceedings are between the same parties, and arise out of the same matter. M. J. C. No. 145 of 1903 is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and M.J.C. No. 143 of 1903 is under Article 226 of the said Constitution.

(2.) THE proceedings relate to .45 acre of land consisting of plot Nos. 229, 200, and 228, situate in village Sultanpur in the District of Patna appertaining to tauzi No. 132C/473. THE case of the petitioners is that the land in question was their 'raiyati' land and they were in actual possession of plot No. 229. Plot Nos. 228 and 200 were in possession of respondents 1 to 4, not as tenants, but by their leave and license as they rendered services to them as ploughmen. THE petitioners filed a title suit, No. 93 of 1948, in the court of the Munsif at Barn for ejectment of the aforesaid respondents from plot Nos. 200 and 228 and for confirmation of their possession over plot No. 229. THE suit was decreed by the trial court on 23-4-1951, and the said respondents filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. THE learned Additional Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court on 30-4-1952. (1951?) According to the decree in that suit the petitioners were held to be in possession of plot No. 229 and their possession was confirmed, and with respect to the other two plots they obtained a decree for recovery of possession. Accordingly on 3-8-1951, they obtained delivery of possession through court over plot Nos. 228 and 200. Some time in 1950 the respondents 1 to 4 made an application to the Collector of Patna under Section 6(1), Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 4 of 1943), for assessment of fair rent in respect of the land appertaining to the aforesaid three, plots. A Deputy Collector, Mr. R. Prasad, was asked to inquire and report about the merit of the application. THE said Deputy Collector found that plot No. 229 was not the homestead land of the respondents, and assessment of fair rent for that plot was outside the scope of the said Act. With respect to the other two plots, namely, plot Nos. 228 and 200, he reported that they were in possession of those respondents and recommended for fixing a rent of Rs. 2 per month. THE Collector accepted the report of the Deputy Collector and passed an order on 13-8-1951, assessing a fair rent in accordance with the report made by him. On 27-1-1953, these respondents started a proceeding under the said Act for being restored to possession over the three plots in question, which was numbered as case No. 175 of 1952-53. On 20-3-1953, the Collector passed an order directing the petitioners to put the respondents 1 to 4 to possession of the aforesaid three plots in the condition in which they existed before they were ejected. THE petitioners have, therefore, moved this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceeding for restoration of possession started under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereafter to be referred to as the Act), and they have also prayed for quashing the order of the Collector dated 20-3-1953, directing them to restore possession of the aforesaid three plots to the respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) IN my opinion, therefore, it has not been established that the order of the Collector with respect to these two plots is without jurisdiction.