Allowed

Dev Narayan Mandal v. State and Ors.

Patna HC26 Jul 2013CWJC/11762/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition quashing ex-parte eviction orders regarding state land. The court found the lower authorities failed to consider documentary evidence showing private possession, drawing a distinction from a prior case involving the same plot.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed; Annexure-4 and 11 are quashed; matter remanded for fresh consideration after issuance of notice.

Dev Narayan Mandal Vs State and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11762 of 1993

¶3

=========================================================== Dev Narayan Mandal, S/o Late Asiklal Mandal, resident of village-Bankatti, P.O. and P.S. – Salkhua, District-Saharsa

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Saharsa 3. The Additional Collector, Saharsa 4. The Saharsa Sub-divisional Officer, Simir Bakhtiyarpur, Sub-dision, Saharsa 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Salkhua, P.O. and P.S. – Salkhua, District - Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Ballabha Sharma Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶5

For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP6)

¶6

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-07-2013

¶7

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is none on behalf of the State, nor has any affidavit, in opposition to the writ application, been filed by the State. The matter relates to the year 1993. When it was taken up a direction for filing counter affidavit was given. It is evident from the record that he State has not bothered to file any counter during pendency of the writ application. Matter, therefore, is disposed off in absence of any assistance from the State, including any kind of opposition from the State.

¶9

An order, dated 02.04.1981 was passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Salkhua in the district of Saharsa in Encroachment Case No. 68 of 1980-81. Another order,

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.11762 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 2/5

¶11

dated 28.10.1993 was passed by the Additional Collector, Saharsa upholding and affirming the order of the Circle Officer. The impugned orders are Annexure-5 and Annexure-11.

¶12

The proceeding in question for removal of encroachment was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the land in question belongs to the State Government. As alleged it is a public land, which has been illegally encroached by the petitioner. An eviction proceeding, therefore, was initiated by the respondentauthorities. Matter relates to Khata No. 143, Khesra No. 1519 of 14 Bigha and 65 decimals of land.

¶13

Stand of the petitioner is that this was a land belonging to the ex-landlord. The records indicates this land as Gair Mazaru Khas Malik and was in cultivating possession of the ex-landlord as Bakastha. The exlandlord had settled this land with the petitioner’s forefather through four Hukumnamas in the year 1936-37 and the receipt had been issued by the ex-landlord through the Court of Wards. Evidence thereof has been brought as annexures to the writ application.

¶14

The Circle Officer, however, has recorded in his order, which is an ex-parte order, that no evidence was produced or led by the petitioner. Whatever defence,

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.11762 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 3/5

¶16

which was taken, is based on some kind of wrong or obtained document only with the object of resisting the action initiated by the respondents for eviction. He has disbelieved the defence and passed the order of eviction, including fixing a liability for payment upon the petitioner due to illegal occupation for a period of time beginning 1952, when the Zamandari system was abolished.

¶17

The above order of the Circle Officer has been affirmed by the Additional Collector. Therefore, the writ.

¶18

Court has gone through the order of the Circle Officer as well as the Additional Collector, contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-11. First noticeable point is that the order of the Circle Officer is an ex-parte order. The second significant aspect is that on what basis he has brushed aside the assertion of the petitioner with regard to his right to continue on the land. What are those materials, which were available before him to come to a conclusion that it was actually a public land to which petitioner is an illegal encroacher is not evident from the order. A series of documents are already on record in this writ application, annexed as Annexure-1, 2, 3, 4 etc. Those documents were required to be considered. A reading of the order of the Appellate

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.11762 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 4/5

¶20

Authority also does not indicate that such considerations had gone into the adjudication. This makes both the orders vulnerable.

¶21

The annexures, which have been talked about above, may be authentic may not be authentic, but they are there anyway. Therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner cannot be ignored or brushed aside without deciding the issue about the manner in which they have come in possession of the land in question. These documents are very much available. They were required to be verified may be from the revenue records or other sources with regard to their genuineness or otherwise. Merely holding that such defence is basically a begotten defence, is brushing the issue aside, which shows a prejudiced mind, to come to a particular conclusive finding, which has been done by the Circle Officer and by similar logic the Appellate Authority too has affirmed that order.

¶22

Taking into consideration the fact that on similar documents, a settlement has already been held to be good in the case of Deo Narain Yadav, in Restoration Case No. 8 of 1985-86, contained in Annexure-8, where similar settlement of land has been held to be a Raiyati or private land which relates to the same plot or khata

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.11762 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 5/5

¶24

number, then how come a different yard-stick is being used in the case of present petitioner.

¶25

In totality, therefore, the matter does require reconsideration. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-4 and 11 are hereby quashed. Matter is, however, remanded back for fresh consideration after issuance of notice.

¶26

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

¶27

Patna High Court, Patna Dated: 26.07.2013 Shashi Kant Mishra NAFR/-

Dev Narayan Mandal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Narayan Mandal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamad Jahangir Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Indira Baitha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mahendra Narayan Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mr. Anant Prakash Bharati Vs the Secretary Home Affairs,Min

Vikash Narain Sinha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Beg Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.