RAJ KUMARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions as well as contempt application are disposed of by this order.

(2.) IN the revisional survey operation the subject land comprised in khata No. 548, khesra Nos. 526, 527, 543, 544, 549 and 550 comprising of a total of 8.65 Acres of land situate in village Pandey Patti, P.S. Buxar, District -Buxar was recorded as Un -aabad Sarbasadharan. The father of the petitioner in Title Suit No. 73 of 1974 filed before the Court of Second Additional Mun -sif, Buxar contended that he is the owner of the said land and acquired the same from the ex -landlord by virtue of a settlement obtained by him in 1945 and since then he is in khaas possession thereof. In the said suit the State of Bihar, through the Collector of the District -Buxar, was the principal defendant. The said suit was instituted under Order I Rule VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. On contest, the said suit was decreed in favour of the father of the petitioner and the Court declared that the father of the petitioner as owner of the land in question is in possession thereof and the said entry in the revisional survey was an incorrect and wrong entry. The Court also passed an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the land in question. This decree was passed on 27th May, 1977. None of the members of the public, who were also bound by the said decree, challenged the same by preferring an appeal. The State of Bihar, however, filed an appeal against the said decree, but beyond time. On that ground the appeal, so preferred by the State of Bihar, was dismissed. The State of Bihar then filed a Second Appeal before this Court. The appeal so filed was a defective appeal. Despite opportunity given by this Court to remove the defect, the State of Bihar failed to remove such defect and in consequence thereof the Second Appeal stood dismissed by an order dated 1st July, 1987 passed by this Court. The State of Bihar did not take up the matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court and, accordingly, permitted the decree passed by the Munsif in rem to reach its finality. Despite such decree having been passed by a competent Court of law the State of Bihar and its Officers did not accept the father of the petitioner as owner of the land in question, and, accordingly, did not settle the rent payable by the father of the petitioner to the State as such owner of the land in question. This caused the father of the petitioner to approach this Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. In C.W.J.C. No. 9540 of 1989 the father of the petitioner sought for cancellation of the decision of the Circle Officer as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, that the father of the petitioner is not entitled to have Jamabandi and a direction upon the State and its Officers to consider the claim of the father of the petitioner to treat him as a tenant under the State in respect of the land in question. This Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the decisions of the Circle Officer as well as of Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, rejecting the claim of the father of the petitioner to settle Jamabandi The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, to dispose of the application of Jamabandi as was filed by the father of the petitioner in accordance with law. This order was passed on 3rd April, 1992, Subsequent thereto the State accepted the father of the petitioner as tenant of the State in respect of the land in question and upon correction of Jamabandi accepted payment of rent to the tune of Rs. 55,167/ -. This happened on 20th October, 2003. After the order was passed by the writ Court, in the year 1992 the State of Bihar through the Collector, Buxar district filed a suit against the heirs of the father of the petitioner and therein contended that the subject land belongs to the State and the defendants are wrongfully interfering with the right, title and interest of the State in the subject land. In the suit a prayer has been made to declare that the petitioner cannot get the benefit of the decree passed by the Munsif in the said title suit.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT thereto when the petitioner was about to start construction of her house on the land in question, the Circle Officer prepared a report dated 4th February, 2004 and therein stated that the subject land belongs to the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar has instituted a suit in respect thereof and, accordingly, appropriate steps are required to be taken. Considering the said report, on 4th February, 2004. the Sub -divisional Officer passed an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restraining the petitioner from stepping on to the land in question.