PRAMANAND ORAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the orders dated 22.11.97 and 19.8.98 passed by respondents Additional Collector, Purnia, as well as the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhamdaha respectively, whereby prayer for declaring the petitioner as Bataidar with respect to the land pertaining to plot no. 2150 of khata 1721 measuring an area of 3.25 acres situated in village Mogalia, Purandaha in the district of Purnia, copies of the said orders are made Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to this writ application.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the case of the petitioner is that an application under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act '), has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself as under -raiyat with respect to the land, in dispute, which was registered as case no. 244/94. According to the petitioner, father of respondent no. 7, namely, Bishwanath Lal Das, orally gave the land and he is in cultivating possession over the same since the time of R.S.operation. It is further alleged that in spite of having in possession of the land being a raiyat, the respondent is bent upon to dispose of the said land by selling to some other person. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation a case was instituted before the respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, as stated above. Pursuant to the notice issued to respondents 4 to 7 they appeared and filed objection stating, inter alia, that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and concocted in order to grab their land, they have denied that the petitioner and/or his father ever came in possession over the land, in question. The petitioner had tried to forcibly occupy the land for which a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. was initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha in which the petitioner was restrained from going over the land, in question. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others being land grabber have forcibly constructed thatched houses on 1.58 acres of land, for which a separate proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated, in which the land was attached in terms of section 146(1) Cr. PC. It is further alleged that with respect to the same land earlier a proceeding under section 48E of the Act was initiated against the respondents by several other claimants which was registered as case no. 3/92 -93 and 4/92 -93 and their claim of bataidari has been rejected by the respondent authority. A similar claim was raised by one Khem Lal Oraon on the ground that his father was cultivating the land as bataidar in the year 1977 and, after his death, the said Khem Lal Oraon was in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, and, accordingly, he filed a petition under section 48E of the Act for declaring him as bataidar with respect to the land. Ultimately his claim was rejected in the year 1977 itself. Again a successive petition in terms of Section 48E of the Act was filed by the petitioner and others which was registered as case no. 245/94 and 246/94. The respondent D.C.L.R. on the pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration all the relevant materials on record has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondent D.C.L.R. has recorded a finding that the person claiming bataidari interest in the year 1997 was not even aware of the name of the land -holder. He has further recorded that the possession over the land as claimed by the petitioner has been negatived in the year 1992 itself in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent D.C.L.R. has also recorded a finding that the claimant petitioner has not produced any iota of evidence in order to establish his claim as bataidar and/or having possession over the land, in question. The respondent D.C.L.R. has also observed to the effect that a similar proceeding was initiated in the year 1977 by one Ram Khelwan Oraon with respect to the same land which is in dispute in this proceeding. No objection has been raised by the petitioner and/or his family during these 18 years. Admittedly, neither the name of father of the petitioner nor the petitioner was recorded as sikmidar in the khatian. Had the petitioner been a bataidar his claim must have been recorded as bataidar during the revisional survey. The claim of the different persons claiming themselves to be bataidar with respect to the same, land has been rejected right from 1977 till 1992 and the petitioner again has come with the same story in the year 1994 merely on the ground that he is being dispossessed of the land by the respondent land -holder. The respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, ultimately, has rejected the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order dated 19.2.96. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent Additional Collector, who after hearing the parties and going through the materials on record has dismissed the appeal and, thereby, confirmed the order of the respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms.

(3.) HAVING regard to the rival contention it has to be considered as to whether the petitioner is a bonafide claimant and/or his claim Is a fictitious one on the basis of the materials available on the record and as to whether respondent D.C.L.R. is bound to constitute the Board in all cases of filing of such petition without prima facie satisfying himself to be a genuine claim of the respective claimants. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner is no longer res integra so far this Court is concerned. A division Bench of this Court in the case of Brijendra Kumar Narain Singh (supra) has held that the proceeding initiated under the Act is a quasi judicial proceeding and the landholder is well within his jurisdiction to show the Collector prima facie that the dispute raised by the so -called claimants is malafide, baseless and not genuine but to harass the land -lord. It has further been held if no prima facie case is made out by the claimants, the very initiation of proceeding is not permissible and the respondent authority is competent to reject the claim before initiating a proceeding in accordance with the various clauses of section 48E of the Act. It has also been observed that earlier a proceeding initiated under different enactments did not establish the claim as under -raiyat. In that event, it cannot be held that a prima facie case is made out for initiating a proceeding for deciding the claim and counter claim of the parties in terms of the provisions of the Act. The ratio laid down in the 1992(2) PLJR (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid decision the respondent Collector under the Act has dismissed the petition of the claimants without initiating appropriate proceeding and/or constituting the Board under the provisions of the Act. Similar is the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhdeo Paswan (supra) in a similar fact, the Collector under the Act has dismissed the application filed under section 48E (1) of the Act. Reference may also be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dhanji Singh vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1979 Patna 259 : 1979 PLJR 247, wherein it has been observed that the Collector under the Act has to apply his judicial mind in order to ascertain as to whether requisite condition for initiating a proceeding exists. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two Division Bench cases the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and, accordingly, rejected as such. Coming to the second submission of the learned counsel, it has to be mentioned that father of the petitioner, who is according to the petitioner, is the original under -raiyat with respect to the land, in question, who is still alive, has not come forward nor has filed any petition claiming such right and/or supporting the claim of the petitioner which, on the fact of it, goes to show that the claim of the petitioner is not a bonafide but fictitious one. The initial proceeding in terms of Section 48E of the Act was first initiated in the year 1977, though by a different claimants, but with respect to the same land, having been rejected in the year 1977 itself but the petitioner and/or his father has not made any objection in the said proceeding even thereafter several claimants have filed such petition, details whereof have been mentioned above, have been rejected by the respondent authority. The successive claim in the year 1994 with respect to the same very land could not be entertained as a genuine and bonafide claim of the petitioner and the respondent Collector has rightly negatived the prayer of the petitioner. The police report has also supported the contention of the respondent land -holder to the effect that the petitioner is the land grabber of the village, in question. The respondent has also brought on record the canal purchas with respect to the land, in question, in order to show that they are in continuous cultivating possession of the land, in question.