SHAHABUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents -writ petitioners in Year 1987 -88 approached the revenue authorities seeking to register their frames in the revenue records in respect of the lands, being the subject matter of the writ petition, as raiyats. In order to establish that they were entitled to be recognized as raiyats of the lands in question, the writ petitioners -respondents relied upon receipts issued in the Year 1943 by or on behalf of Hathua Raj. The receipts acknowledged receipt of payment of money for settlement of the lands in question. The request so made by the writ petitionersrespondents was accepted and, accordingly, the writ petitioners -respondents were entered in Register II as persons entitled to pay revenue in respect of the lands in question.

(2.) THE moment this happened, people of the locality including the appellants before us lodged protest. At the instance of the Appellant No. 1, a case was started for cancellation of recording of the names of the writ petitioners in Register II. While this succeeded before the authorities under the Act, the same was defeated when the actions of the authorities were challenged by the writ petitioners -respondents by filing a writ petition in this Court registered as CWJC No. 5841/1993. The orders passed by the revenue authorities to delete the names of the writ petitioners - respondents from Register II were quashed by this Court in the said writ petition by an order dated 5th July, 1993. While doing so, this Court felt that the only way left for the authorities concerned to deal with the subject claim of the writ petitioners -respondents can be found from Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950w hich is as under: ''

(3.) THE Collector purported to initiate a proceeding under Sec. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 . While doing so, the Collector heard the appellants as well as the writ petitioners - respondents. On principle he held that the recording of the writ petitioners -respondents as raiyats of the lands in question in Register II was unauthorized. He. therefore, purported to do what he was prevented from doing by the previous order of this Court which was binding on him. While considering the respective submissions he recorded the submission of the appellants that the lands in question are public land as recorded in the revisional survey. This was countered by the writ petitioners -respondents by contending that the entire land situate on the plot in question is not public land, a part thereof is. However, the order of the Collector does not show that while he opined that the entire land is public land he had any occasion to look into either the cadestral survey records of rights pertaining to the land in question or the revisional survey conducted sometimes in 1960 in respect of the self same land. Ultimately the Collector opined that inasmuch as it was a public land, the erstwhile Zamindar could not settle the same in favour of the writ petitioners -respondents. The assumption of the Collector that it was a public land was based on the submissions made on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the same, as such, had been recorded in the revisional survey. It is quite unfortunate that the Collector did not abreast himself of the fact that he was dealing with a 1943 settlement, while the revisional survey was made in 1960. He did not bother to ascertain whether the lands in question were shown as public land in the cadestral survey records of rights. Furthermore, as aforesaid, only on the face value of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the Collector proceeded to conclude that in the revisional survey the lands in question have been shown as public land.