Smt. Rajmuniya Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arshad Alam, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Raisul Haque-SC-10 ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶18

3 15-04-2025 Heard the parties.

¶19

The present petition has been preferred for

¶20

following relief:

¶21

“for directing the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order with regard to status of land the details whereof is being mentioned herein below, was allotted to the original displaced person (Repatriate) namely Ram Nazar son of Late Sukh Ram Mahto from Burma.

¶22

Mauza Khanpur Tauzi No.515C, 143 B, Thana

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.7306 of 2017(3) dt.15-04-2025

¶24

2/6

¶25

No.210.

¶26

Khata No.	Plot	Area
23	58/1099	0.35
	195/2210	0.06
	633/4446	0.15
	604/3499	0.35
	638/4089	0.60
	804/4441	0.31

¶27

2.03 decimals

¶28

The petitioner claims that the land in question was allotted to the displaced person namely Ram Nazar who was granted the raiyati interest.

¶29

Ram Nazar is father-in-law of the petitioner and according to her, after the execution of the loan bond in the year 1976, khatian was prepared in the name of her father-in-law. Subsequently, the Central Government waived of the loan of the repatriates till 31.03.1984 whereafter her father-in-law became the settled raiyat of the said land in question.

¶30

However, in the year 2013, the respondent Additional Collector, Samastipur shoot of a letter asking the father-in-law to explain how the said piece of land was alienated by him in the year 2010. It is to be noted that Ram Nazar

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.7306 of 2017(3) dt.15-04-2025 3/6

¶32

transferred the land in favour of the petitioner by absolute sale deed in the year 2010.

¶33

Though despite the correspondence between the parties, as no order was passed, the writ jurisdiction was directing for a direction upon the respondents to pass an appropriate order.

¶34

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and 7 namely the Additional Collector, Samastipur as also the Circle Officer, Khanpur, Samastipur respectively and paragraph nos. 10 to 12 read as follows:

¶35

10 . That, with regard to the averment as made by the petitioner in Para No. 12 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that the statement of the writ petitioner regarding the preparation of khatiyan is completely false and there is not even an iota of truth in it rather the original repatriates were given the parcha of the allotted land by the concerned authority.

¶36

11 . That with regard to the averment as made by the petitioner in Para No.13 to 15 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that letter No. 4 RH-10/86-3901/Sa.Pu. patna-15, dated

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.7306 of 2017(3) dt.15-04-2025 4/6

¶38

19.10.1987 issued under the signature of Sri A.P. Purti, Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar discloses that the central Government waived the loan and interest of repatriates which accrued till 31.03.1984 and as per the direction mentioned in the letter the original repatriate became the Raiyat of the settled agricultural land.

¶39

12 . That, with regard to the averment as made by the petitioner in Para No. 16 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that the original repatriates had no right to transfer the landed property to any other in his life time rather after the death of original repatriate, his heirs will be entitled for the same according to rule. It is important to mention here that the deeds of Ram Nazar is quite illegal in the eye of law.

¶40

A bare reading of paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit would show that it has been averred that the original repatriates had no right to transfer the landed property to any other in his life time and after the death, his/her heirs will be

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.7306 of 2017(3) dt.15-04-2025 5/6

¶42

entitled for the same according to the rule.

¶43

In that background, the decision taken by the father-in-law of the petitioner was quite illegal. Though no reply to the counter affidavit has come on behalf of the petitioner for last five years, this Court is also surprised that no further affidavit has also come on record to show whether pursuant to the notice sent by the respondent Additional Collector, Samastipur, upon the reply filed by the petitioner’s family, whether any decision was taken by the said respondent or not.

¶44

The State counsel is unable to inform whether a decision has been taken or not.

¶45

In that background, though in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to reply to paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit, the petition is/was fit to be dismissed, in view of the fact that even the respondents have faltered and have not taken even the decision pursuant to the notice sent by it in the year 2013 for last one decade, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent no.5, the Additional Collector, Samastipur to take immediate decision in the matter if not taken in next eight weeks. Failure to do so, the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs.5,000/- as cost amount as the counter affidavit was filed in the year 2020 and for five years, there is nothing on

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.7306 of 2017(3) dt.15-04-2025 6/6

¶47

record to show whether the concerned respondent even took any decision or not. If the decision has already been taken, immediate communication of the said order should be sent on the postal address of the petitioner.

¶48

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶49

vinayak/-

¶50

U

Smt. Rajmuniya Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajmuniya Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimlesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar through Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary

Mahendra Sharma Vs Sri Rahul Singh, Secretary Expenditure Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar

Krityanand Mahto and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jai Chand Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kashi Nath Prasad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.