YOGENDRA PD.SHUKLA @ YOGENDRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2003 as affirmed on 8.6.2003 passed in Jamabandi Case No. 1/01 -02 by which the jamabandi standing in his name has been cancelled. It is the contention of the petitioner that the lands in question, identified as 12 Katthas of plot No. 5045, Khata No. 270 in village Kabirpur was settled by the erstwhile landlord in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner, Mathura Prasad Shukla. A parwana was issued on 16.7.1940 in proof of acceptance of Salami. Mathura Prasad Shukla was put in possession and the State started to realize rent from him. At the time of vesting of estates, the landlord in his return did not mention the lands settled in favour of Mathura Prasad Shukla. Shri Shukla then filed a rent fixation case No. 23/61 -62. On 9.5.1963 final orders were passed after enquiry by the Circle Officer fixing the rent and Jamabandi No. 436 was created in favour of Mathura Prasad Shukla. It is the further case of the petitioner that as early as 1968 an application was filed by certain persons challenging the rent fixation and jamabandi in the name of Mathura Prasad Shukla. Though it is his case that after filing of the show -cause the matter was dropped, no documentary evidence has been brought on record. Mathura Prasad Shukla died in 1983 leaving behind the petitioner as one of the legal heirs. The petitioner filed an application for mutation before the Circle Officer, Mairwa when the mutation application was allowed and the Jamabandi No. 436 continued. In 1992 the petitioner was again asked to show cause with regard to the jamabandi and settlement. He again filed his show cause. The show cause filed is Annexure -8. It is his case that having heard the matter the proceedings were again dropped. However, on this occasion also no documentary evidence has been brought on record. In the year 2002 the settlement made with the ancestors of the petitioner subsequently mutated in the name of the petitioner 40 years later was sought to be questioned on the floor of the Assembly. The very opening of the Jamabandi Cancellation Case starts with the recital that a proposal for cancellation had been submitted in view of the question raised with regard to the settlement and jamabandi of the petitioner in the Assembly. The show - cause notice was again issued to the petitioner when final orders for cancellation have been passed.

(3.) THE counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents seeks to question the settlement made distant in time by the landlord in favour of Mathura Prasad Shukla. It also seeks to make an issue of the orders passed in the rent fixation case in 1963 vis -a -vis Mathura Prasad Shukla and the jamabandi opened in his name. The counter affidavit states that the officials searched the case records but could not find any such records. Hence, the State makes the submission that the documents were bogus and created doubts. Therefore, the claim of the rent fixation case and consequent creation of jamabandi did not appear genuine.