RAJESH RANJAN @ RAJEEV RANJAN YADAV @ RAJESH RANJAN YADAV, SON OF LATE KAMESHWAR YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been preferred for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the landed property of the petitioners' being Khata No. 2252, Jamabandi no. 103/2252, Khesra No. 1198, 1199 and 1200 measuring about 3.19 Decimal and another plot bearing Kheshra No. 1199 measuring about 01.7 and 1/2 Decimal (total 4.27 Acres) which have been attached by respondent no. 3 on 30.06.2017 for the alleged violation of the provisions contained under Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 and confiscation proceeding being Excise Cr. Misc. No. 63 of 2017 has been initiated before the District Magistrate-cum-Confiscation Officer Hajipur, Vaishali (Respondent no. 2).

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the landed property. Property were purchased by the father, vide registered sale deed which the petitioners have succeeded after death of their father. It is stated that petitioner no. 3 had constructed a small building in his own share measuring about 1000 square feet on the land bearing plot no. 1199 for purpose of letting out. This portion was let out subsequently to one Ranjit Sah for a period of six months. A copy of tenancy agreement has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is alleged that Mahua Police had raided their premises and seized Tata 407 vehicle which was being used in transporting of wine and arrested Ranjit Sah tenant of the said rented premises.

(3.) The grievance of petitioners is that the petitioners have been served with a notice by respondents no. 2 in the confiscation proceeding initiated on the requisition of Superintendent of Police, Hajipur. It is stated that Superintendent of Police, Vaishali has recommended for confiscation of the total land measuring 4.27 Acres without appreciating that the constructed area which was rented out to Ranjit Sah was hardly about one thousand square feet on plot no. 1199 only. It is submitted that on the basis of the requisition alone, the District Magistrate has called upon the petitioners to show-cause. It is submitted that the petitioners requested respondent no. 2 for dropping of the confiscation proceeding but the respondent no. 2 has not passed any order thereon. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are being deprived of their legitimate right to cultivate the land and of rental income from the land and building in question.