MIA JAN MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. The suit was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession over the suit land as mentioned in Schedule -I of the plaint.

(2.) THE appellant's claim to the suit land was founded on settlement by the Ex -landlord. By order dated 3.4.1978 the State of Bihar cancelled his settlement illegally. The appellant's case is that Khesra No. 1891 having an area of 3 acres 16 decimals of Khata no. 287 of village Ghiwadhar stood recorded as Gairmajarua Malik in R.S. Khatian. Previously, Bettiah Raj was the owner of the land. Bettiah Raj settled some lands in favour of a few raiyats out of the said land under Khata no. 287 and after vesting the State of Bihar came in possession of the rest of the land of the said khata. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of 41 acres of land of plot no. 1891 since last 20 years. After vesting of Jamindari the appellant filed a petition before the Anchal Adhikari for settlement in his favour. The Anchal Adhikari recommended the case of the appellant to the LRDC. LRDC, Motihari settled the said land with the appellant on 22.7.1975 and sent papers to the S.D.O. Sadar Motihari for its approval. The aforesaid recommendation was duly approved and the plaintiff paid rent for 20 years at the rate of Rs. 37.40 paise on 28.11.1975. The plaintiff -appellant constructed certain structures over the disputed land. Subsequently a dispute under section 144. Cr. P.C. arose between Sri Shah and the appellant. The 144 Cr. P.C. proceeding was later converted into 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding. During the pendency of 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding the aforesaid Sri Shah filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the said settlement in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that on the same day the Collector, East Champaran cancelled the settlement without serving any notice to the appellant. Thereafter follow up action was taken by the Anchal Adhikari.

(3.) THE appellant's claim was opposed by the defendants on the plea that the settlement was not a valid settlement inasmuch as the appellant never came in possession of the suit land. The settlement order was obtained by fraud played by the appellant. According to the defendants, close south of the suit land there was Brahmsthan and towards west is M.E. School and on the north there is Idgah and the suit land was not fit to be settled with any body. The appellant is not a landless person and as such according to the Government Policy and circular the land could not be settled with the plaintiff. It was alleged that in the night of 25/26th March, 1978 during the Holi festival the appellant all of a sudden put an old hut on the suit land which hurt the feelings of two communities and so there was serious apprehension of breach of peace. A magistrate was deputed to maintain peace. Later on illegal encroachment over the suit land was removed in pursuance of the order passed by the Collector cancelling the settlement.