He contended that though the land offered by the petitioner was originally belonging to his father namely, Sri Jainath Singh, which was purchased by him by a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1973, but in view of decree passed by the Gram Kutchery of the local Gram Panchayat, the petitioner became the rightful owner of the land offered by him for the show room and godown. Therefore, according him, the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he was not having suitable land in the advertised location on the date of filing his application is patently wrong and contrary to the materials available on the records. He further contended that under Section 110 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (in short, “the Act, 2006”), a Bench of Gram Kutchery is empowered to pass a decree of partition with respect to the lands, where complicated question of law or title is not involved. He next contended that the aforesaid decree by the Gram Kutchery was passed with the consent of the family members. Therefore, the respondents ought to have accepted the decree and ought not to have cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of land to the petitioner in the advertised location on the date of application. It was pointed out that by way of abundant precaution, father of the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 16.11.2010 with respect to the land in question. Therefore, according to him, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner was not having suitable land in advertised location is completely misconceived and unfounded. Hence, it is pleaded that the impugned order/communication (Annexure-1) is liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court.
