HIRU MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ application is to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.12.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Misc case No. 17/92 -93, as contained in Annexure -3 and for restraining the respondent No. 5 from transferring/selling lands which is used for place of worship and burial ground.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1, describing himself to be the Secretary of Charakpuja Samiti has filed the present writ application.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that though the name of Hari Kishore Prasad Singh is there in the Khatian since his ancestors were the Ghatwar (Jamindar) of the said land but he never came in possession of the same. He had no male issue and had only one daughter Tara Devi who after her marriage never kept any concern with the said village or the lands in question and she was never in possession thereof. It is alleged that the respondent No. 5 Mukul Prasad, who is claiming to be the near relation of the last intermediary of Garsara Taluque, was going to sell the land in question at a throw away price in order to hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community and made attempts to disturb the "Charakpuja". It is stated that in the year 1991 to resolve the dispute between the respondents and other villagers a compromise was arrived at with the intervention of the administration wherein it was decided that the villagers will to hold "Charak Puja" over the portion of the land and rest portion can be used by the owner of the said land, but again dispute arose in the year 1992. The Circle Officer of Palojon reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar that the land was being used as a "Charakthan" for "Charakpuja" and also a Burial ground in part of it. The Circle Officer also reported that under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act the land was not transferable. The said report of the Circle Officer has been annexed as Annexure - 4 to the present writ application. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, by order dated 21.1.1996 in Misc. case No. 17/92 -93 after considering the respective cases of the parties and also the relevant documents, held that the land in question was a raiyati land of Malik and the respondent No. 5 was the raiyat of the land under Sec.23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Deputy Commissioner further held that the nature of the land in question was not "Charak Than" but it was only its name and not its nature.