MOSOMAT SUNDAR MAHTAWAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing Annexure -8, which is a gazette notification No. 19 dated 1.1.1979 along with the notification No. 198 (Ceiling) of Land Reforms Department dated 18.11.1978 whereby and whereunder the lands were acquired under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and Annexure -11, which is the order of the Additional Collector dated 12.6.1985, refusing to interfere with the notification aforesaid, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to make corrections therein and also Annexure -14 which is the order dated 25.8.1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in case No. 51(R) 28/89 -90 whereby and whereunder a petition under Section 45(B) of the Act filed by the writ petitioner was rejected declaring the purchase of the land in dispute to simply a paper transaction and consequently issuing a direction for distribution of that land to the landless, besides for a declaration that the land in dispute cannot be acquired under the Act with an alternative prayer that on account of her being a displaced person as her land was acquired by the HEC, to settle the land in her favour with the additional prayer to direct the respondents to forebear the respondents from settling the land in dispute with the landless.

(2.) THE short facts of the case is that the petitioner claims to have purchased 3 acres 75 dec. of land bearing plot Nos. 1020, 1019, 1016, 379 and 476 of village - Hessapiri and plot Nos. 1012, 1026, 1014, 1016, 1022 and 1025 in village Hessapiri for a consideration of Rs. 5000/ - in the year 1963 from Sri Bal Mukund Nath Shahdeo by Annexure -3 and further she purchased by Annexure -4 another pieces of 2 acres of land in Hesalpur for a consideration of Rs. 6000/ - from the same person in the year 1964. The petitioner claims that her lands in khata No. 173 in village Murma District - Ranchi, measuring 3.77 acres were acquired for Hatia Township, which stood in the name of Ledwa Kurmi and an award has been made an compensation was paid to the awardees. Then there was certain understanding between the HEC and the Government with regard to providing employment to the displaced landholders. The case of the petitioner is that as she was a displaced person under the aforesaid award, she had purchased the aforesaid land in order to rehabilitate herself and subsequently land was mutated in her name by Annexure -5, rental, receipts were issued by Annexure -6 and ultimately a Khatian was prepared with regard to Hesalpur land in her favour and her status was shown as Kaime, Annexure -7/1. With the facts aforesaid, it appears that in the year 1972, the son of the seller submitted returns and in that, it was not mentioned that the land in dispute were retained for personal use of that man; consequently the lands were acquired as stated above and that necessitated the passing of Annexures -11 and 8 although the petitioner did hot surrender her possession. That led to a petition being filed, which was rejected. That led to filing of CWJC No. 1281/1985R, Annexure -12, whereby the Court by order dated 17.7.1989 directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 45 -B of the Act, before the competent authority and directed the competent authority to enquire into and pass an order under Section 45 -B. Consequent thereto, an order was passed and the prayer of the petitioner was rejected and thereupon that order was challenged in CWJC No. 642/1993R Annexure -15, and was quashed.

(3.) THE claim of the petitioner that she was a displaced person from HEC and consequently the lands were purchased by her to rehabilitate herself and in terms of the agreement made by the HEC for the displaced persons, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land in question was not challenged by the respondents.