The Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by underage heirs-challenging an order rejecting their claim for land allotment under the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, holding that a matter settled decades ago cannot be reopened.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.22 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13970 of 2010
With
Interlocutory Application No.133 of 2011
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.22 of 2011
======================================================
Both sons of Late Hira Singh
All residents of village-Barahia Tola, Post office Rasalpur Chakari, Police Station Maharajganj District Siwan.
.... .... Petitioners-Appellants
Versus
Patna High Court LPA No.22 of 2011 (11) dt.31-07-2012
2 / 4
The delay of eight days occurred in filing the Letters
Patna High Court LPA No.22 of 2011 (11) dt.31-07-2012
3 / 4
Patent Appeal is condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.22 of 2011:
This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioners against the order dated 30th August 2010 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13970 of 2010.
The matter at dispute is the land Survey Plot No.145, Khata No.2, Touji No.817, Thana No.240 situated at Village-Barahia Tola, Post Office-Taripur, District-Siwan. It is not in dispute that the said land was of the ownership of one Mahant Krishna Dayal Giri. As early as in 1976, the said land was held to be surplus in the hands of the said Mahant Krishna Dayal Giri under the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’).Out of such surplus land, the parcels of land admeasuring 0.5 decimal were distributed amongst the landless persons, the respondent nos. 6 to 27 before us. The said respondent nos. 6 to 27 have thus become ‘parcha holders’ of the parcels of land since 1992. Decades thereafter the petitioners raised the dispute. According to the petitioners, their predecessors in title were the ‘Bataidars’ of the landlord Mahant Krishna Dayal Giri since 1945. The petitioners being heirs and the successors of the said ‘Bataidars’ were the under-raiyats in the said land. The petitioners being under-raiyats, were entitled to the allotment of the said land as occupancy-raiyat under Section 22 of the Act of 1961. The claim raised by the petitioners has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi has appeared for the appellants. He has relied upon the aforesaid Section 22 of the Act of 1961. He has submitted that till date the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land and are entitled
Patna High Court LPA No.22 of 2011 (11) dt.31-07-2012
4 / 4
to allotment of the said land as the occupancy-raiyat as envisaged by Section 22 of the Act of 1961. He has submitted that the application for revision made to the State Government under Section 45B of the Act of 1961 was wrongly rejected. The learned single Judge ought to have remitted the matter to the State Government to examine the claim of being under-raiyat of the appellants and if found true, for the allotment of the land as occupancy-raiyat. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sk. Samiur Rahman and others v. The State of Bihar and others , {1993 (2) PLJR 322}. Mr. Dwivedi has also submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings under the Act of 1961 or the disputed land being held surplus or the parcels of the land having been allotted to the ‘Parcha-holders’. In absence of knowledge attributable to the petitioners the delay does not matter.
We see no substance in the claim made by the appellants. The matter which has been settled as early as in 1976 and the allotment made as early as in 1992 cannot be reopened now after decades.
We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed
in limine.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Pawan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Allahabad order rejecting the petitioners' claim for allotment of land as occupancy-raiyat under the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961 is sustainable.
Whether the delay of eight days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned.
Whether the matter settled decades ago can be reopened.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sk. Samiur Rahman and others v. The State of Bihar and othersReferred¶43
{1993 (2) PLJR 322}
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Paras Nath Singh and others
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Revenue & Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar
R.M. Doshit
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
