(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate -Cum -Sub -divisional Officer, Kishanganj passed in Appeal No. 9 of 2002 u/s. 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ')/B.T. Act.
(2.) THE petitioners ' case is that they had filed an application u/s. 48D of the B.T. Act wherein they have claimed to be the Sikmidars of the landlord and have asked for a declaration to acquire the right as a raiyat and pay rent to the landlord i.e. the State of Bihar. The lands in question are situated in Mauza - Kukurbaghi appertaining to Khata No. 130, Khesra No. 3001 measuring 4.35 acres which is the kaimi land of the predecessors in interest of the private respondents. The petitioners are claiming to be Sikmidars of Sikmi Khata Nos. 145 and 146, Khesra Nos. 3023 and 3024. measuring 0.58 and 0.14 acres respectively. The petitioners claimed that the lands aforesaid were recorded in the name of Tarachand Singh as Sikmidar and Babu Nanku Prasad Jaiswal was the recorded Kaimidar of the land aforesaid. Ramesh Singh was the son of the Sikmidar Tarachand Singh and the petitioners 7 and 8 are the daughters of the recorded Sikmidar whereas petitioners 1 to 6 arc the legal heirs of Ramesh Singh. The Circle Officer, Thakurganj, District; - Kishanganj after issuing notice on 21.8.2001 passed an order on 28.8.2001 holding that the claim of the petitioners as Sikmidars was tenable and also passed an order on 21.9.2001 directing that the petitioners should pay Rs. 720/ - to the Kaimidar and directed that a correction slip should be issued in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) THE landlords who are respondents 4 and 5 in the writ application filed an appeal against the order dated 21.9.2001. The case of the respondents is that they did not receive any notice with regard to the proceedings u/s. 48D instituted nt the instance of the petitioner. The respondents ' case is that Tarachand the Sikmidar had executed a registered Ladabinama dated 10.12.1958 relinquishing his interest and possession during his life time in favour of the recorded tenant Babu Nanku Prasad Jaiswal as a result of which Sri Jaiswal came into actual physical possession over the said land. Babu Nanku Prasad Jaiswal by a registered sale deed dated 17.4.1967 sold 2 acres 51 decimals from Plot No. 130, 1.40 decimuls from Khesra No. 3001, 58 decimals and 4 decimals from Plot No. 3023 and 3024 respectively which are the lands in dispute. Sri Jaiswal also sold 6 decimals and 33 decimals from Plot No. 3041 and 4044 respectively which are not the subject matter of dispute. The said plots were sold to one Dhorai Singh, who got his name mutated and had been paying rent to the State of Bihar. Dhorai Singh in turn sold 1 acre 47 decimals to one Dev Singh and 1 acre 4 decimals to Sri Baidyanath Singh by a registered sale deed no. 2646 and 2645. dated 24.4.1985. The vendees came into possession of the said lands and were granted rent receipts after getting their names mutated in the records of the State of Bihar. Dev Singh and Sri Baidyanath Singh sold the lands by registered sale deed no. 5147 dated 1.10.1994 to Bhagwan Das respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 claims that he got his name mutated in the records of right and was also paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is also the case of the respondents that Babu Nanku Prasad Jaiswal in the year 1966 by a registered deed dated 17.3.1966 sold an area of 2 acres from Plot No. 130 (which is not the subject matter of the dispute) and 1.96 from Plot No. 3001 which lands are the subject matter of the present dispute to Jitan Singh and to others. The purchaser Jitan Singh by a registered sale deed no. 3350 dated 24.6.1989 sold the land to Khona Singh and respondent no. 5 claims to be a purchaser from Khona Singh vide registered sale deed no. 4052 dated 3.6.1975, Yamuna Prasad respondent no. 5 got his name mutated in the revenue records of the State Government and is paying rent to the State of Bihar.