Allowed

Gurusharan Das and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Feb 2015CWJC/4573/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging orders under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The court held that disputed lands, belonging to ex-landlords and retained in their exclusive possession, did not vest in the State. It set aside the collector's and commissioner's orders declaring the land as state property and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within six months. Petitio

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; orders of Collector and Commissioner set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration within six months; petitioners' possession to remain undisturbed.

Gurusharan Das and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8103 of 1997

¶3

=========================================================== Nasir Haidar, son of Alauddin Haidar, resident of Village Makhdumpur, P.O. and P.S. Makhdoompur, District Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Public Works Department (Road), Patna

¶6

1. The Collector, Jehanabad 4. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Road), Jahanabad 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D. (Road), Makhdoompur, District Jahanabad 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Makhdoompur, District Jahanabad. .... .... Respondent/s

¶7

with

¶8

=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4573 of 1998 =========================================================== 1. Gurusharan Das, son of late Laxman Das 2. Manohar Prasad, son of late Narsingh Narain 3. Sarwar Haider, son of late Jamiruddin Haider 4. Sumitra Devi, wife of Sarwan Kumar, all residents of Village Makhadoompur, P.S. Makhdoompur, District Jahanbad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner of Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The Collector, Jahanabad 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Jahanabad 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Makhdoompur, District Jahanabad .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No. 8103 of 1997) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.S. Dubedy, Mr. Husain Majeed, Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y.P. Sinha, AAG 15 Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG15. (In CWJC No. 4573 of 1998) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.S. Dubedy, Mr. Husain Majeed, Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to GP2. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-02-2015

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.8103 of 1997 dt.20-02-2015

¶10

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Since in both the cases issues are identical, they have been

¶13

heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶14

In the following cases the lands in dispute are as follows: In C.W.J.C. No.4573 of 1998

¶15

Khata No.126, Plot No.139/20, area 12 Katha, 7 Dhurs, 10

¶16

Dhurki.

¶17

Khata No.126, Plot No.395/801, area 11 Katha 4 Dhurs Khata No.126, Plot No.395/803, area 1 Bigha, 13 Kathas, 18 Dhurs

¶18

Khata No.126, Plot No.72, area One Bigha, 10 Dhurs, 10 Dhuriki

¶19

Khata No. 126, Plot no.431, area 17 Kathas,

¶20

Khata No.126, Plot No.98,99, 2 decimals

¶21

Khata No.126, Plot No.801, area 5 decimals,

¶22

Khata No.126, Plot no.73, 88, area 4 decimals

¶23

Khata No.126, Plot No.75, area 2 decimals.

¶24

Khata No.126, Plot No.134, area 1 deecimals. Khata No.126, Plot No.76,64, area 4 decimals

¶25

Khata No.126, Plot No.72/13, area 2 decimals.

¶26

Total Area 5 Bighas, 1 Katha.

¶27

In C.W.J.C. No.8103 of 1997

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.8103 of 1997 dt.20-02-2015

¶29

¶30

Khat No.126, Plot No.139, Area 1 Acre, 54 decimals Khata No.126, Plot No.139, area 2 Kathas, 15 Dhurs, 14

¶31

Dhurki,l

¶32

Plot No.139/13, are 9 Dhur, 5 Dhurki, Plot No.139/22, area 9 Kathas, 3 Dhurs, 7 Dhurki Total 13 Kathas, 3 Dhurs, 7 Dhurki, Khata No.7, Plot No.72, area 1 Acre, 64 decimals

¶33

Khata No.126, Plot No.72/13, Area 18 Kathas, 15 dhurs, 12 Dhurki.

¶34

Total: 1 Bigha, 11 Kathas, 18 Dhurs, 1 Dhurki.

¶35

In both the cases the petitioners have challenged the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Commissioner. In C.W.J.C. No. 8103 of 1997 the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.8.1997 passed by the Collector, Jehanabad arising from Case No.20/DM/1996-97 and the order of Divisional Commissioner, Gaya dated 26.5.198 passed in Appeal No.67 of 1997.

¶36

In C.W.J.C. No. petitioners are challenging the order dated 13.8.1997 passed by the Collector, Jahanabad in Case No.20/DM/1996-97 and the order of Divisional Commissioner, Gaya dated 26.5.1998 passed in Case No.66 and 67 of 1997.

¶37

The short facts of the cases are that the aforesaid lands

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.8103 of 1997 dt.20-02-2015

¶39

¶40

were belonging to the ex-landlord but was incorrectly recorded in the cadastral survey as the land of Zila Parishad that led to filing of Title Suit No.39 of 1930 which was decided against the exlandlord and the same was challenged before the appellate court in Title Appeal No. 7 of 1931, the appellate court reversed the order of the trial court, passed the order in favour of the exlandlord.

¶41

The matter came before this Court in appeal which was heard and dismissed vide judgment dated 5.2.1934 which was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal vide L.P.A. no.4 of 1934 agaisnt the Zila Parishad.

¶42

Later on, partition took place among family members and lands were allotted to the respective share holders, the present petitioners are either settlee or purchaser of the land from the exlandlord. It has been claimed that the ex-landlord themselves voluntarily gave some portion of land for the construction of road and the same has not been disputed but rest portion of land remained exclusive possession of respective share holders. In the present case the question for consideration whether the land which was owned by the ex-landlord remained in their exclusive possession at the time of enforcement of the Land Reforms Act or the land of ex-landlord has vested in the state of Bihar whether

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.8103 of 1997 dt.20-02-2015

¶44

¶45

these are the land will be deemed to have been vested. If the lands were within the exclusive possession of the ex-landlord they have right to settle and sale the same. As per the scheme of the Land Reforms Act all lands standing in their names did not vest except provided under the scheme of the Act. It cannot be said that all lands which were owned and possessed by the exlandlord not mentioned in scheme of the Land Reforms Act have vested.

¶46

In the present cases they are claiming exclusive right over the property. They have produced various document for consideration without proper consideration the Collector instead of dealing the issue involved in the present case, and without proper consideration by sweeping and cryptic order arrived to a conclusion land in question vested in State of Bihar after enforcement of the Bihar Land Reforms, 1950 and declared the same as public land. There is no consideration at all in deciding the issues raised. The Divisional Commissioner, Gaya committed error in deciding the issue of effect of judgment and decree in civil proceeding vis-à-vis the scheme of Land Reforms Act. In such view of the matter, the orders of Collector and Commissioner are set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. The respondent authority will not disturb the

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.8103 of 1997 dt.20-02-2015

¶48

¶49

possession of the petitioners till the decision of the Collector, if not already distributed. It goes without saying that if the matter is decided against the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before appropriate forum. The Collector is directed to complete all process within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶50

With the aforesaid observation and direction these writ petitions are allowed.

¶51

Vinay/-

¶52

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶53

Gurusharan Das and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurusharan Das and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Kishan Seva Cold Storage P Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Saryu Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sumit Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Zafar @ Md. Zaffar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramdev Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar