KASHI PRASAD MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned AC to G.P.9 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. However, none appears on behalf of the proposed heirs of deceased respondent no.4, to whom notices were issued by order dated 29.10.2015 on I.A. No. 8659 of 2015, though notices have been received by them, which is evident from the office note dated 9.9.2016.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.7.2004 passed in B.P.P.H.T. Appeal No. 764 of 2001-02 by the respondent District Collector, Katihar, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid case filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 21 of The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (in short 'Act, 1947') has been dismissed and the order passed by the Circle Officer, Barari has been affirmed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner had purchased 3 decimals of land of khata no. 3613 appertaining to Khesra no. 6891 through a registered sale deed dated 3.12.1964 for the purposes of construction of his residential house. By referring to the averments made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition, he further submitted that the petitioner is having no other land, except the aforesaid 3 decimals of land, which is the subject matter of consideration in the present proceeding and for which one Munshi Yadav, the father of original respondent nos. 4 to 6, had filed a petition under the provisions of the Act, 1947 for issuance of homestead parcha. It was next contended that on the basis of the petition filed by the father of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Case No. 9 of 1978-80 was started by the Anchal Adhikari, Barari (Anchal Kursela was earlier part of Anchal Barari) for grant of homestead parcha with respect to the lands in question, but at no point of time any notice was issued either to the father of the petitioner, who is now dead, or to the present petitioner, and the entire proceeding was carried out behind their back in complete violation of the rules of the natural justice, though the land in question was purchased by them way back in the year 1964. It is also contended that once the petitioner came to know about issuance of the impugned homestead parcha, as contained in Annexure-2, he filed a petition under Section 21 of the Act, 1947 before the respondent District Collector, Katihar, giving rise to B.P.P.H.T. Appeal No. 764 of 2001-02, but that was finally dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.7.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent District Collector, Katihar.