JANGI LAL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, on 7.12.1988 in Case No. 91 Misc/1984 -85, whereby, the order, dated 27.7.1984, recorded by the Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, passed in Case No. 17 of 1982 - 83. upholding the Rent fixation order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bettiah, dated 27.5.1980, mainly on the ground of the inspection report of the Anchaladhikari, Bettiah, in Case No.7 of 1976 -77 has been reversed. A conspectus of the material and relevant facts leading to the rise of this petition may be highlighted at this juncture. The disputed lands consisting of 6.62 acres of land of plot nos. 228, 204, 205 and 224, appurtaining to Khata Nos. 255 and 256 of village Kargahia, in the district of West Champaran, are entered in the names of Laxmi Prasad and Kunju Lai in equal shares. The said property of Kunjilai came to be auctioned, which was purchased by one Shri Durga Prasad, in Execution Case No. 156 of 1923, in execution of a decree passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 1914.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the auction purchaser gave the land in possession of late Yamuna Prasad, father of the petitioner. The other half share of Laxmi Prasad also came to be auction sold in rent decree and was purchased by the (respondent no.6). In course of time, trees fell down and the woods were consumed by local people and the land remained idle for some time. As the petitioner 'sfather was in possession of the other half of the same land on behalf of Durga Prasad, he took possession of the other half as well, and amalgamated both the land and remained in possession of the entire land measuring 6.62 acres. Late Durga Prasad sold his half land to the petitioner through a registered sale deed and the possession of the petitioner became possession in his own right over half part of the land and other half also remained in his possession openly in his own rights.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had occupied and enjoyed the usufruct and product of the land as he had planted mango trees. It was done within the knowledge of every one including respondent no.6 without any obstruction from any corner.