CHANDRAMANI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17-8-91 passed by respondent No. 4 in Revision Case No. 261 to 264 of 1990 and the order dated 15-9-98 passed by respondent No. 2, Commission, Palamau Division in Survey Appeal No. 131 to 134 of 1991.

(2.) Petitioners' case is that the land appertaining to old Khata No. 75, Plot No. 9 (new Khata No. 1, Plot No. 19) measuring 1,91 acres of village lever pandu, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt- Palamau stood recorded as raiyati land in the name of Pali Ram Pandey. Just after four years from last survey settlement operation Pali Ram Pandey died leaving behind two sons Sheo Ram Pandey and Guput Pandey. In the year 1941 both the above-named sons transferred the aforementioned land in favour of one Bharat Shukla by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11-12-1941 and the purchaser came in possession of the same after mutating his name and started paying rent. Bharat Shukla in his turn transferred the said land to (1) Ram Praga Pandey (2) Jainath Pandey and (3) Gulab Pandey by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30-12-1954. It is stated that the said purchasers came in possession of the land and started paying rent to the State of Bihar. Petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the above-named purchasers.

(3.) Petitioners' further case is that in the year 1965 the predecessor of private respondent nos. 5 and 6 being heirs and successors of aforesaid Shiv Ram Pandey and Gupat Pandey filed Title Suit No. 114 of 1965 in the court of Munsif, Palamau against the aforesaid three purchasers of Bharat Shukla as principal defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Bharat Shukla as proforma defendant No. 4 for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and/or for recovery of possession and further declaration that aforesaid registered sale deed executed by their ancestors in the year 1941 to Bharat Shukla and registered sale deed executed by Bharat Shukla (proforma defendant No. 4) in the year 1954 in favour of principal defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (who are petitioners and predecessors of present writ petitioners) are farzi and that orders of mutation passed by B.D.O., Bishrampur and confirmed in appeal No. 287 of 1960-61 in favour of defendant are illegal and without jurisdiction. Defendants (predecessors of writ petitioners and writ petitioner No. 3) filed their written statement in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 114 of 1965. The suit was decreed but finally the appeal preferred by the defendants of that suit was allowed by Additional District Judge, Palamau by his judgments and decree dated 10-5-1973 passed in Title Appeal No. 23 of 1971 holding that pLalntiffs are not entitled to get the declaration sought for and consequently the suit was dismissed on contest with cost. Again in the year 1975 the sons of the pLalntiffs of aforesaid earlier Title Suit No. 114 of 1965 (now respondent Nos. 5 to 6 in present writ petition) filed Title Suit No. 56 of 1975 for declaration that they are occupancy'tenants in possession of the suit land and the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Palamau in Title Appeal No. 23 of 1971 (Annexure-1) is not affecting them and prayed for permanent injunctions against the present writ petitioners not to enforce the aforesaid judgment. On contest, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 56 of 1975 dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31 -5-1979 passed by Munsiff, Palamau, whereby learned Munsif held that the suit is barred by principles of res judicata u/s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because pLalntiff of Title Suit No. 114 of 1965 preferred Second Appeal in the Hon'ble High Court against the first appellate judgment (T.A. No. 23 of 1971) which was not admitted, and as such the mater became final. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Palamau passed in Title Suit No. 56/75 the pLalntiff/ judgment debtor (Sons of present respondent No. 5 and 6) filed Title Appeal No. 40 of 1979. By judgment and decree dated 28-7-80 the 4th Additional Sub Judge, Palamau dismissed the aforesaid Title Appeal No. 40 of 1979 on contest with cost and the judgment and decree of Trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 56 of 1975 was confirmed. Lastly pLalntiffs/respondent (judgment-debtors) filed Second Appeal No. 169 of 1980 in this Hon'ble Court which was also dismissed on contest with cost by judgment and decree dated 6th September 1989. Thereafter in recent survey settlement operation under the C.N.T. Act, the predecessor of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by suppressing the aforesaid judgments and decree of civil suits and appeals as aforesaid and gaining over the conscious of the surveying authorities and their staffs, got the order u/s. 83 of the C.N.T. Act passed in their favour for preparation draft statements under assertion of same cLalm as taken in civil suits in respect of same land in which their cLalm have already been rejected. The predecessor of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in connivance with the survey authorities and staff with intention to complicate the matter and harass the petitioners in respect of same land and same parties involved in aforesaid successive Title Suits cause to register 4 separate objection case nos. 17, 18, 19 and 41 u/s. 83 of the C.N.T. Act. As soon as the petitioners learnt about the said purported order and draft statement as stated above filed Revision Case No. 261, 262, 263 and 264 of 1990 u/s. 89 of the C.N.T. Act against the aforesaid four objection cases on the ground that aforesaid purported objection and orders if any u/s. 83 is in complete violation and disregard of the judgments and decree passed in civil suits passed by learned Munsiff, Additional District Judge and this Hon'ble High Court and as such the proceedings pursuant to such objections is void, illegal, perverse, contemptuous and an abuse of the legal authority. It is stated that in aforesaid Revision Case No. 261 to 264 of 1990 opposite parities the predecessor of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not filed any chit of paper in support of their cLalm. But Sri Munshi Bhojraj, Incharge Officer, Palamau by his order dated 17-8-91 passed in Revision Case No. 261 of 1990 u/s. 89 of the C.N.T. Act rejected all the four Revision Case Nos. 261 to 264 of 1990 holding therein that predecessor of respondent Nos. 5 series and 6 are in possession, and ignored all the decisions of civil suits, appeals including of this Hon'ble High Court.