Allowed

Md. Khurshid v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Jan 2024CWJC/8562/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the order rejecting his raiyati rights over disputed land in Mauza Madanpur. The High Court found the impugned order perverse and non-speaking as it failed to assign reasons or consider documents. The Court set aside the order and directed respondents to decide afresh on a fresh representation with hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner to file fresh representation within four weeks; respondents to pass fresh reasoned order after hearing within eight weeks thereafter.

Md. Khurshid Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8562 of 2023

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Md. Khurshid Son of Mohammad Saphik resident of village- Islampur (Madanpur), P.S. Madanpur District - Aurangabad. At present resident at Bolani, Balaguds Kendu Jha, Odisha.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶8

The Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶9

The D.C.L.R., Aurangabad. 5. The S.D.O. Aurangabad.

¶10

The Circle Officer Madanpur, Aurangabad.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishwajeet Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, AC to SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-01-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

This writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2022 passed by joint signature of District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 2) and Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 3) in Title Verification Case No.100 of 2015-16 whereby and where under the raiyati rights of the petitioner in regard to the disputed land pertaining to Mauza- Madanpur, Thana No. 785,

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.8562 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024 2/4

¶16

Khata No.176, Plot No.1103 and Area-0.0405 hectare, has been rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the Circle Officer, Madanpur, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 6) upon consideration of the documents, had recommended the declaration of raiyati rights in favour of the petitioner. He also submits that the jamabandi was open in the name of father of the petitioner and continued in his name since 1989 and rent receipt was granted to him up till now i.e. for more than 30 years. Therefore, in this view of the matter, he has lawful right on the said land. It is further submitted that from the order impugned, it transpires that there is no reason assigned as to why the District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 2) and Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 3) have not considered the case of the petitioner and only one line finding is against him that the competent evidence has not been filed by the petitioner but what are the competent evidence, which has not been produced, has not been mentioned.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the said order has been passed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950). It is also submitted that there is a resolution issued by the

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.8562 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024 3/4

¶20

Government of Bihar vide Memo No.925 dated 11.11.2014, in which it has been decided that those lands, which were under the possession of the former landlord or their heirs and legal representatives in whose names rent receipts were granted, against them the action has to be taken under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950). It is further submitted that the said order dated 05.07.2022 has been passed completely applying the law laid down under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶21

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the documents available on record, this court is of the opinion that at the time of passing the order dated 05.07.2022, neither the District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 2) nor the Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 3) has whispered about the applicability and consideration of the document on the basis of which the order was passed.

¶22

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in view of this Court, the order dated 05.07.2022 is absolutely perverse, non-speaking, and as such, the order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Swamitya Satyapan Case No.100 of 2015-16 is hereby set-aside.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.8562 of 2023 dt.08-01-2024

¶24

4/4

¶25

In above view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before respondents within four weeks from today, along with a copy of this order. In the event the petitioner files his representation within the stipulated time, the respondents shall pass order afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and upon considering all the documents, as well as the provisions of law, within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.

¶26

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶27

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶28

shashank/-
AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	11.01.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Md. Khurshid v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Khurshid v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuvneshwar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Bachi Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mohammad Amanul Haque Vs The State of Bihar

Harihar Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar