LAWS(PAT)-2006-10-6

SONE LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 19, 2006
SRI SONE LAL YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that the name of the father of the appellants was registered in the records of right as under raiyat of the land in question and as such the appellants have right as under raiyats of the land in question after the death of their father. IT appears to be the contention of the private respondents that the father of the appellants during his life time executed a registered Ladafinama and thereby declared that he was never an under raiyat of the land in question and, in fact, the same was noted in the records of right by mistake.

(2.) THE appellants' claimed that their father was under raiyat of the land in question and upon his demise they became under raiyat of the land in question. THE appellants contended that the private respondents acquired the land from the registered raiyat by way of purchase but that purchase did not extinguish their right as under raiyat, and then sought to illegally evict the appellants from the land in question and accordingly, the appellants were constrained to approach the Collector under Sub-section 1 of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act seeking protection. It appears that the Collector upon registration of a case on the basis of such complaint of the appellants, instead of referring the matter to the Board to he constituted in terms of the provisions contained in Section 48E of the Act, himself decided the matter in favour of the appellants and while doing so observed, Page 0049 amongst others, that the Ladafinama is unreliable. It appears that an appeal preferred against the said order succeeded principally on the ground that one of the appellants is a Road Roller Driver of the Government. THE writ filed against the appellate order has been dismissed principally on the some ground. An employee shall not be entitled to be an under raiyat has not been provided for in Bihar Tenancy Act and accordingly whether or not one of the appellants was or was not a government employee was not at all germane to the issue as was raised in complaint lodged by the appellants.