NAGINA SAH Vs. RAJPATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure 11, an order dated 17.6.1974, passed by the Collector of Saran, in Miscellaneous P. Case no. 90 of 1973, by which he has directed the Circle Officer of Amnapur to issue a Parcha to respondent no. 1, Rajpati Devi under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also to grant her all protections to which she is entitled under the Act.

(2.) Plot no. 1446 appertaining to Khata no. 17 situated in village Dhorlahi Kaithal within Amnaour police station having an area of 1 Katha 18 dhurs is the land in dispute. One Sheo Narain Ram son of respondent no. 1 laid claim to this plot as a privileged tenant and in the year 1972 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Amnaour for a grant of a Parcha under the Act. The petitioner filed an objection to the aforesaid petition of the Sheo Narain Ram, on which the matter was referred to the Circle Inspector for inquiry, who after setting the matter inquired into by the Karmachanes concerned submitted a report dated 21 7 1972, copy of which is Annexure 2. Along with his report, the Circle Inspector submitted a true copy of the report of the Karamchari of Halka no 8 copy of which is Annexure 3. The Halka Karamchari had reported that the father of Sheo Narain Ram, Loma Ram had in the neighbouring village, Khoripakar Khrag 30 decimals of land out of which plot no. 322 having an area of 1 decimal is recorded as his Basgit land. The other lands that he possessed were plot no. 743, having 5 decimals and plot no. 109, having 24 decimals After a consideration of all these reports, the Circle Officer reported the matter to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who was the competent authority under the Act to pass final orders. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector on a consideration of the materials before him came to the conclusion that Sheo Ram Narain was not a privileged person within the meaning of section 2 (i) of the Act and was, therefore, not entitled to any Parcha as a privileged tenant, copy of this order has been annexed and marked as Annexure 5 which is dated 8.8.1972.

(3.) Thereafter respondent no. 1, who. it is not disputed, is the mother of Sheo Narain Ram, filed an application before the Collector of Saran, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Petition Case no. 90 of 1973, copy of which is Annexure 8, in which she had stated that she was residing in village Dharlahi Kaithal within Amnaour police station for more than 30 years and had her house no 1446 appertaining to Khata no. 17. She also stated in it that on the vacant portion of this land she has her Sehan. She further stated that the petitioner was a Kashtkar. i.e. tenant of the plot in question and being a rich and influential person in the village was attempting to forcibly evict her. Apprehending danger of forceful eviction, she had moved the Circle Officer, Amnaour to grant her a Parcha under the Act, on which no action had been taken and hence she was approaching the Collector directly to seek protection. She further stated that she had no other land except the disputed land. She accordingly prayed that a Parcha might be issued in her favour under the Act and fair rent fixed. She also prayed that the Circle Officer, Amnaour and the Officer Incharge Amnaour, Police Station, be directed to protect her from wroneful and forceful dispossession. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the petition filed by resdondent no. 1 and also filed an affidavit controverting the statements of respondent no. 1. In the rejoinder, the petitioner denied that resoondent no. 1 was either a privileged person or a privileged tenant. It was also stated that she had no house on the disputed plot and she had never been in possession of it. Various other facts were also stated in this petition.