SHYAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 27.8.1992, passed by the Circle Officer, Simri in Basgit Purcha Case No. 55/91 -92 and also the order dated 24.2.2001, passed by the Collector, Buxar in Case No. 2/95. By his order the Collector has affirmed the order passed by the Circle Officer, whereby respondent no.4 was held to be the privileged tenant with respect to land of Khata No. 111, Plot No. 152 measuring three and a half decimals of Mauja Sahiar, and has issued Purcha in his favour under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) IN the present case, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4, wherein it has been stated that he was residing over the land as tenant for more than 30 years. The said land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1991 from the original tenant. After the purchase, the petitioner wanted to evict respondent no. 4 from the house. Considering his threatened ejectment, he filed an application for issuing a purcha with respect to the lands in his occupation and possession under the provisions of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased 21 decimals of Plot No. 152 of Khata No. 111 in Mauja Sahiar from Anurag Dayal Singh soon after purchase respondent no. 4 trespassed in two kaccha room over the disputed land. Respondent no. 4 has his homestead land in same mauja in some other plot, even then he applied for issuance of Basgit purcha. Respondent no. 4 is not a privileged tenant as he was not residing over the land with the consent of the petitioner but he was a trespasser, no purcha under the provisions of the Act should have been issued by the authorities in favour of a trespasser or a squatter. It has also been submitted that as respondent no. 4 was forcibly living in the land of the petitioner, the people of the locality intervened in the matter and it was decided that the petitioner will purchase 8 decimals of land in the name of respondent no. 4 who in turn will execute deed of disclaimer in favour of the petitioner for three and a half decimals of land. Both the sale deeds dated 12.4.1992 for 8 decimals of land and the deed of disclaimer dated 12.4.1992 were registered on the same date. It was agreed that respondent no. 4 will construct his residential house on 8 decimals of land and vacate the land in dispute. Respondent No. 4 subsequently changed his mind and filed Basgit Purcha Case No. 54/91 -92 on concealment of the fact that he already having homestead in the same Mauja and 8 decimals of land in his name which he acquired in exchange of the 3x1/2 decimals of land of the petitioner.