Dhanpati Prasad and Others vs The State of Bihar, The Collector, Madhubani, District Madhubani, The Additional Collector, Madhubani, Distt. Madhubani and The Circle Officer, Anchal Rahika, Distt. Madhubani

Anjana Prakash, J.—The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 30.7.1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Madhubani, passed in Appeal No. 254 of 1986-87 under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act by which order he confirmed the order of the Anchal Adhikari, Rahika. The final order was passed u/s 6 of the said Act by the S.D.O. on 17.11.1986 holding that Plot No. 2061 is Gairmazarua Aam land and Plot No. 2091 is a graveyard used by the Muslim community. The petitioners preferred an Appeal against the said order which was dismissed for reasons of limitation. The petitioners then came before this Court and the matter was reopened on the direction of this Court by an order dated 21.4.1993 by which this Court directed the Additional Collector to hear the Appeal on merits. Thereafter, the matter was heard in Appeal but the case once again decided against the petitioners.

The dispute arises with regard to the Plot Nos. 2061 and 2091 situated in village Kharauwa, P.S. Rahika, Distt. Madhubani, which was recorded as Parti Kadim and Gochar respectively. The petitioners claimed that they were in possession of the land since the year 1936 having acquired it from a Darbhanga Maharaj. The petitioner No. 3 Faturi Prasad claimed that Plot No. 2091 was Gochar land which was used by the Hindu community which was an area of 1 Bigha 1 Kattha and 15 Dhurs. A Title Suit No. 51 of 1993 was also pending between the parties in the Civil Court. A number of persons claimed settlement of Plots on Plot No. 2091 who were not petitioners before this Court except Petitioner No. 1 who claimed an area of 3 Katthas and 13 Dhurs. The rest in their submission stated it was barren land used for cattle feedings. On spot enquiry of Plot Nos. 2061 and 2091 it was found that the petitioners No. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 and 18 were in possession of certain piece of land of Plot No. 2061 whereas one Ram Dulari Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad i.e. Petitioner No. 9 was found to be in possession of part of Plot No. 2091. The S.D.O. further reported that the entire area of Plot No. 2091 have been bounded and the area in possession of Ram Dulari Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad, Petitioner No. 9 was in fact, outside the bounded area of Plot No. 2091. The S.D.O. after spot verification was of the opinion that in total leaving an area of 12 Katthas and 7 Dhurs, the rest of the area was under encroachment and there was a direction by him for removing the same. The S.D.O. also found that the Plot No. 2090 was the "Idgaah" whereas Plot No. 2091 was the graveyard used by the Muslim community. Basing the appellate order on the report of the S.D.O, the Appeal of the petitioners was rejected. The report of the S.D.O. is annexed as Annexure-2.

The counsel for the petitioners contends that once this Court had directed the Collector to get the aforementioned land measured and to make a spot verification whereafter prepare a Memo of inspection, the same was not done and, therefore, his reasoning in the Appeal are fit to be set aside. The further submission is that the petitioners have been living on the lands for a considerable period of time and have therefore acquired a vested right which should not be disturbed. On the contrary, the counsel for the State submits that the authorities based their orders on documents and physical verification and there was no illegality or error which would subject the orders to being set aside.

On going through the reports of the S.D.O. in encroachment case No. 28 of 1986-87, I find that the matter was initiated on 22.9.1986 on the basis of complaints by the general public of the area. A report was thereafter called for from the Anchal Adhikari with regard to the Plots No. 2061 and 2091 on the basis of which notices were issued to the parties who had allegedly encroached on the lands concerned. The parties thereafter appeared and laid their claims based on documents with regard to the settlement of the lands. The examination of the same reveals that the stand of the petitioners was that they had received the land from the ex-landlord of Darbhanga who had settled the same by way of Parwana. Admittedly, Khesra No. 2061 stood as Gairmazarua Aam (Bharhamsthan). The petitioners/their fathers laid their claims on the basis of Parwana issued for settlement of 4 Katthas and 16 Dhoors land. However, they did not have the rent receipts after the abolition of Zamindari from the year 1973. Moreover, different Khatians had been prepared in the name of each other persons. Even conceding this, about 8 Katthas of land would be found to be still in their under encroachment. The rest of the claimants also claimed similarly but there was no documentary proof with regard to the same except the rent receipt which were issued from the year 1973. It is on the basis of documentary proof that the S.D.O concluded that the petitioners had encroached certain piece of land and, therefore, were fit to be evicted under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The Appellate Court also reveals a full discussion of the claims of the petitioners on the basis of documents and there does not seem to be any illegality having been committed by him in the decision making process.

In view of such, the application is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioners, if they are parties in the Title Suit, to pursue their remedies with regard to the Plot No. 2091 and the same shall be concluded expeditiously.