MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8514 of 1992, by which the writ application preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by the learned single Judge taking note of the fact that all the authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, have come to a concurrent finding that the land in question is not in the boundary of the land of the appellant rather the boundary raiyat is the father of this appellant, who had acquired the land as his self-acquired property.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that in fact the findings are perverse which the learned single Judge has not been able to appreciate because in a Hindu undivided family there is a presumption of jointness unless it is rebutted by bringing cogent evidences on the record. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the fact stated in the affidavits brought on the record not only of this appellant but his father and brother before the authorities below would show that the land held in the name of the father, belong to the joint family, and this small piece of land was purchased in the name of the appellant, who is serving in Army just for purpose of amalgamating with the piece of land held in the name of the father to construct a residential house thereon. Learned counsel submits that not only the evidences both before the authorities below and the learned single Judge were ignored, but contrary to the settled proposition of law that burden lies upon the person who alleges partition to prove that, all the authorities have simply stated that the land standing in the name of the father of this appellant is his self acquired property.