GOSHWAMI TULSI PUSHTAKALAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel in support of this intra-court appeal, Sri T.N. Matin, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 7 and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The appellant in this intra-court appeal was the unsuccessful writ petitioner. By the writ petition he had challenged initiation of the entire proceedings being Case No. 10/1995-96 and various orders passed therein whereby steps were taken to make settlement of land in favour of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 which land was in occupation of the writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner was not able to produce any official document to show that the land was settled to him by the State. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

(3.) Sri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel in support of the appeal and in support of the writ petition has brought to our notice certain facts which are relevant. In or around 1953 the then landlord (Jamindar) made settlement of about 27 decimals of land for establishing a public library known as Sri Goswami Tulsi Pustakalaya. Even after vesting of Jamindari by virtue of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the entire 27 decimals of land continued in possession of the said public library. In order to augment its income for maintaining and running the said public library, certain portions therein were rented out by the management of the said public library to private persons from time to time. On record documents clearly show that even State funds were made available from time to time to this public library. From these facts, it is clear that right from 1953 this property of 27 decimals was treated by everybody as belonging to the public library. State also recognized the same though no formal settlement was made in favour of said library which existed even prior to vesting of Jamindari. It appears one small part of the land upon application by Bhola Sao, the husband of Respondent No. 7 was rented out to him for establishing kolhu (oil mill). He was paying rent to the writ petitioner. Upon his default in paying rent an eviction suit was filed by the management of the writ petitioner. Notwithstanding he, as a tenant and was inducted as a tenant and paying rent, he took strange plea in the court, challenging the ownership for the right of the management over the property in question, notwithstanding Section 116 of the Evidence Act. However, the court below decreed the suit and ordered for eviction of said Bhola Sao, the husband of Respondent No. 7. In between, Respondent No. 7 being the wife of Bhola Sao made an application to the Circle Officer, Bihta for settlement of that very piece of land with her. This was rejected. Thereafter when Bhola Sao was not vacating the premises, notwithstanding the decree, the decree was put in execution in which she turned up and filed an application in terms of Order 21 Rule 96 objecting to the execution proceedings. Bhola Sao has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction. It may also be noted here that Bhola Sao manufactured a document to show settlement in his favour in order to get electric connection in his own name. The document was made available by the Circle Officer. When these facts came to the knowledge of the writ petitioner, they initiated a criminal proceeding in which Bhola Sao and the Circle Officer including Respondent No. 7 Shanti Devi were convicted. The Circle Officer is facing departmental proceeding as well. Notwithstanding this, Respondent No. 7 then made an application to the Circle Officer for settlement of the said land ostensively pleading that the land was State land and not in occupation of any person and, as such, it could be settled. Upon this application, Case No. 10/1995-96 was initiated wherein ultimately settlement order has been made in favour of Respondent No. 7 for the land in which her husband had entered as tenant of the public library. It is this action of the State that was challenged in the writ proceedings.