BALESHWAR YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondent, Central Bureau of Investigation to institute and investigate the case for preparing a forged and fabricated order of this Court in Second Appeal No. 180/80R and for using the same in connivance with the Circle Officer, respondent No. 4 who wrongly and illegally stopped issuance of rent receipts in favour of the petitioner and has passed an order for issuance of rent receipts in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the basis of the forged and fabricate order in Misc. case No. 31/95-96.

(2.) The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ application are as follows ;-One Bhawan Mahto had two sons, namely, Kheman Mahto and Neman Mahto. Kheman had a son, namely, Bandhan Mahto whereas Neman Mahto had one daughter, namely, Daulti. Both brothers, Kheman and Neman inherited 28.9 acres of land and partitioned the same in equal shares. Nemam Mahto had no male child. His daughter Daulti inherited the property of Neman Mahto. She sold 4.62 acres of land in favour of one Satyanand Singh by a registered sale deed dated 30-12-1943. Said Satyanand Singh filed a title suit No. 140/1944 against Barhan Mahto and others with respect to the said purchased land. The said suit was decreed in favour of Satyanand Singh. Satyanand Singh then transferred the land in favour of Meghu Mahto, father of the petitioner who got his name mutated in the sherista of the State of Bihar with respect to the purchased land measuring 4.62 acres. Subsequently Meghu, father of the petitioner, filed a title suit No. 12/76 in the Court of Munsif, Giridih against Most. Murti and others. The said suit was decreed in terms of the judgments dated 23-6-79. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant preferred a title appeal being T.A.No. 28.79 which was dismissed on 25-2-80 by the District Judge, Giridih. It appears that Murti and others then filed Second Appeal in this Court being S.A.No. 102/80R and the same was dismissed on 13-5-85. A copy of the order dated 13-5-85 passed in said S.A.No. 102/80 has been filed and marked annexure 4 to this application.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that he came to know from reliable sources that the Circle Officer, Halka Karamchari, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 haveconnived together and the Halka Karmachari submitted a false report on the basis of some forged order passed by this Court in S.A.No. 102/80R and on the basis of the said order the respondent No. 4, the Circle Officer has cancelled his zamabandi without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. It is stated that the petitioner immediately obtained the certified copy of the order dated 21-11-96 passed by respondent No. 4 in Misc. Case No. 31/95-96 as also the report of the Halka Karmachari and found that the certified copy of the ordersheet of this Court was tagged with the record on the basis of which the zamabandi of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner inspected the records of Misc. Case No. 31/95-96 and found the photo copy of the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in S.A.No. 102/80R tagged with the same. A photo copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure 7 to this writ application.