GOPAL PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.10.1986 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Madhepura, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1986, under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), whereby he has held that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are privileged persons and privileged tenants within the meaning of the Act, and have accordingly directed for issuance of Parchas in their names. Raj Kumar Ram Versus State Of Bihar

(2.) AT the very outset I must deal with the objection of respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the effect that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of multiplicity of causes of action. The writ petition raises two causes of action. When this matter had come up before this Court on the earlier occasion, the original petitioner herein had rightly preferred two different writ petitions. This writ petition could have been dismissed on this ground itself. It deals with questions of facts, division of plots and allotments thereof. It was, therefore, all the more imperative that separate writ petitions, as on the earlier occasion, ought to have preferred. However, I have chosen to take a lenient view in the matter and decided to adjudicate the matter on merits, inter alia, for the reason that this writ petition has remained pending in this Court since 1987.

(3.) THE case of the original petitioner herein (the landlord) before the Anchal Adhikari is that he is himself in the position of a privileged tenant and, therefore, in the event of such competing claims, the benefit of the Act would not be available to respondent nos. 3 and 4. His further case is that respondent no. 3 herein (Shibbu Pandit) has his own homestead upon Plot No. 7375, and is also in possession of land bearing Plot No. 7415 where he does the job of making earthen utensils for sale. According to the petitioners, just the same is the position with respect to respondent no. 4 (Ganesh Pandit). He has his homestead on Plot no. 7376, and is also in possession of land being Plot no. 7416 where he does the job of making earthen utensils for sale. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgments dated 3.7.1986 of this Court (Annexure 1 & 2), the matter went back on remand to the Anchal Adhikari who had disposed of the matter by the impugned order (Annexure 6), whereby he has upheld the claim of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Hence this writ petition.