RASIK LAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents (Respondents No. 4 to 14).

(2.) THIS application is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at this stage. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2002, passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Araria in Appeal Case No. 77/2001 -02, as contained in Annexure - 2, whereby he had set aside the order dated 19.12.2000, passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Kursakanta, as contained in Annexure -1, declaring that the petitioner had acquired a raiyati right under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ').

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari concerned chiefly on the ground that as per the law laid down in Kusumlal Mallah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., [1996 (2) PLJR 339], the claimant, before making a claium under Section 48D of the Act should have taken steps for initiation and thereafter should have succeeded in a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. It is submitted that the aforesaid view expressed by a single Judge of this Court was overruled in a subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Dilip Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & ors., [2003 (2) PLJR 211]. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has held that the earlier view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kusumlal Mallah (supra) that without any adjudication of the under raiyat 'sstatus, under section 48E, application under sectiuon 48D will not be maintainable, cannot be said to be a correct law on the point as both of the provisions of law lie in separate compartments having little nexus with each other. It is further submitted that petitioner was each other. It is further submitted that petitioner was found in possession and his father was recorded sikmidar and, as sum, on the ground of custom prevalent in the area, the Anchal Adhikari had rightly declared that the petitioner has acquired the status of a raiyat on the strength of being occupancy raiyats.