CHUNCHUN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications, involving common questions of law and fact, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these writ applications the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of an order D/-30-12-81 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent 2), as contained in Annexure-'1' to these writ applications.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

(3.) The petitioner claims himself to be entitled to the land in question by reason of two sale deeds dt. 3-2-73 allegedly executed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 3918 of 1982 and respondent 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 3920 of 1982. According to the petitioner he had come in peaceful cultivating possession of the aforesaid purchased land. The petitioner has asserted that after final publication of the record of rights, he came to learn that the land in question was recorded in the names of respondents 3 to 20 in each case as raiyat as also in the names of respondents 21 to 24 as under raiyats in C.W.J.C. No. 3920 of 1982. According to the petitioner he was not aware of the survey proceeding as he purchased the said land at the initial stage of the survey operation and, as such, could not file any objection as he was not made a party in the objection petition. The petitioner, having come to learn of the final publication of the Khatian, filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer at Revenue Court, Bhagalpur (respondent 2), purported to be under S.106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the said proceedings which was initiated on the said objection petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents 3 to 7 appeared and filed their respective written statements, inter alia, contending therein that some of the respondents had already died before institution of the said suit. The petitioner having come to learn of the said fact filed an application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives in place of the deceased respondents 8 to 20. The contesting respondents filed rejoinder to the said application for amendment wherein they prayed for dismissal of the said suit on the ground that the said purported substitution petition was filed at a belated stage. By the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-'1' to these writ applications, the respondent 2 has rejected the said application filed on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the said suit.