Karu Yadav vs State of Bihar

Sourendra Pandey, J

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ application under article 226 of the constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for direction to the concerned respondents to pay the compensation for the land acquired for widening of National Highway-II vide notification published way back in the year 2010 by adopting the due process for compensation for the land of the petitioner, acquired through valid purchase from a bonafide vendor in whose favour long-standing jamabandi has been uninterruptedly continuing but going contrary to the Bihar Tenancy Act, particularly under sections 5 (2), 6 and 7 of the act as well as and further for issuance of writ of certiorari for setting aside the joint order dated 24.07.2021 passed in Swami Satyapan Case No.22 of 2017-18 by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad and the District Collector, Aurangabad and the connected order recommending rejecting Raiyati Claim vide order dated 12.01.2022 jointly passed by the Land Revenue Deputy Collector, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, through I.A. No.1 of 2026.

The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is to the effect that the land appertains to khata number 295 plot number 2747/3566 measuring area 54 square metre situated at village Shahpur circle Aurangabad, district Aurangabad, has been acquired for widening of NH-II into a 6-lane vide a notification, way back in 2010 and thereafter the petitioner has not been served any notice, nor has an award notice for compensation been received. The petitioner approached several times before the concerned authorities, but after the lapse of 7 years, the authorities concerned have initiated proceedings for 'swamitva  satyapan' (Title Verification) in the light of resolution vide 925 (6)/RA dated 11.11.2014 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, vide registering Case No.22/17-18.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, Aurangabad has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing such an order. That in the grab of swamitya satyapan, the authority concerned is not paying the compensation and the concerned authority is intending to declare the land of the petitioner as government land, though the land has been acquired through a registered sale deed through Bonafide vendor whose long-standing jamabandi has been coming since the abolition of jamindari and vide order dated 24.07.2021 the entitlement of the petitioner has been disowned in the Case No.22/2017-18.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been acquired by the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 25.01.2008 for the land appertaining to Khata no. 295, Plot no. 2747/3566 situated at Mauza-Shahpur, from the vendor whose ancestor acquired the land through the settlement made by ex- Landlord and after abolition of jamindari, the jamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioner and he has been paying the rent since 2008 and since then the jamabandi has been running uninterruptedly. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there has been peaceful possession of the petitioner since 2008 and he is cultivating over the land and in the intervening period, the authority concern has not interfered with the possession over the land nor do they hold jamabandi, but when the process of acquisition of the land for widening NH-II came into force, then the authorities concerned, in the garb of Swamitya Satyapan or Raiyatikarn, though not permissible under the revenue law and in garb of the resolution, have started creating trouble in order to deprive him of getting compensation. It is further submitted that the authorities concern without paying compensation or issuing notices, have forcibly taken the land.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the authorities concerned have forcibly taken over the land in the garb of the Resolution 925(6) dated 11.11.2014, for land ownership verification, the compensation for the land has not been paid and the petitioner has been running from pillar to post and thus, the act of the authority concern is contrary to revenue laws particularly Bihar Tenancy Act and Bihar Land Mutation Act as well as Article 300 'A' of the Constitution of India and thus interference is warranted in the interest of justice.

The learned A.C. to A.A.G.-12 for the state by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 submits that as a matter of fact the land in question, bearing Khata no. 295, Plot no. 2747/3566, Area-209 sq. metre situated at village- Shahpur, Thana No. 566, P.S.+Anchal+District-Aurangabad, has been acquired by the government for widening NH-II into a six lane Highway. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid acquired land in question is recorded in C.S. Khatiyan as gairmajarua malik land, which is being claimed by the petitioner as its raiyat on the basis of a sale deed executed in favour of petitioner's uncle in the year 2008. It is next submitted that in light of the claim of the petitioner, a proceeding for Swamitya Satyapan was initiated by the Circle Officer, vide Ownership Verification Case No. 38/2019-20, in which the concerned Halka Karmchari/C.I. reported that the acquired land in question bearing Khata no. 295, Plot no. 3566, Area- 209 sq. metre situated at Mauza-Shahpur, Thana No. 566 is recorded in khatiyan as gairmajarua malik C.S. land and for its raiyatikaran, the petitioner does not fulfill the terms and conditions as laid down in departmental Sankalp No. 925 (6)/ Ra. dated 11.11.2014 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt of Bihar.

The learned A.C. to A.A.G.-12 next submits that in the light of the report of Halka Karmchari as well as the direction issued for Raiyatikaran of Gairmajarua Malik land, the petitioner doesn't fulfill all the terms and conditions of the department letter and accordingly, the concerned record of Swamitya Satyapan case no: 38/2019-20 was sent to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, with a recommendation to reject the claim of the petitioner with regard to raiyatikaran of the gairmajarua malik acquired land in his favour. It is next submitted that the collector, Aurangabad, who after hearing all the parties, rejected the raiyati claim of the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2021.

It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not based upon the relevant documents, as the acquired land in question is recorded in C.S Khatiyan as Gairmajarua Malik Land and the petitioner doesn't have a valid ground to contest this writ petition, as this application is devoid of all merit.

After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the dispute is with regard to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner to be the raiyat of the land in question. The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 provides for a summary proceeding for mutation of land records with the sole object of maintaining updated revenue entries. It is a well settled principle that mutation proceedings do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various judicial pronouncements, has held that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and the same has been reiterated in the case of "Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186".

At this juncture, this Court is of the view that the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 PLJR, 584" is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

One paragraph of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) is to be taken note of :-

"The result of these three progressive stages is that if the State wants the petitioners' lands or the lands on which the petitioners have been residing for last 50 years, they must pay due compensation and take action in accordance with the provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act. If they intend to cancel the Jamabandi then it is for them to move the Civil Court for a declaration  that  the  alleged  settlement and/or Jamabandi is illegal and cannot be accepted and let the title of the State be so declared but till such time the dispute is resolved, the petitioners cannot be evicted by the State in any manner nor can just compensation for acquisition be denied."

In view of such settled position of law, this Court finds that the order dated 24.07.2021 passed jointly by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional Magistrate, Aurangabad and the District Collector, Aurangabad, passed in Swamitva Satyapan Case No. 22 of 2017-18 has been passed ignoring the aforesaid settled law, relying upon the Letter No.925 dated 11.11.2014.

In such circumstances, where the raiyatikaran of the persons like the petitioner is not approved over the said land and in fact the claim is rejected, it impliedly also nullifies the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner way back in 2008. It is not a case where for no reason the land in question was entered in the name of the petitioner.

From the records, this Court also finds that earlier the Circle Officer had submitted a report dated 24.11.2020 giving his opinion therein that the land is recorded as gairmajarua maalik in the continuous khatiyan and the possession of the petitioner for the last thirty years was accepted, but only on account of the criteria for raiyatikaran the land was held to be of the Government.

It is a settled law that a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner cannot be negated by an executive instruction unless the same is set aside by a competent Civil court.

The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, for setting aside the joint order dated 24.07.2021 passed in Swami Satyapan Case No.22 of 2017-18 by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad and the District Collector, Aurangabad and the connected order recommending rejecting Raiyati Claim vide order dated 12.01.2022 jointly passed by the Land Revenue Deputy Collector, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.

Hence, in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs the order dated 24.07.2021 passed in Swami Satyapan Case No.22 of 2017-18 and the connected order recommending rejecting Raiyati Claim vide order dated 12.01.2022 are hereby set aside.

The I.A. No. 1 of 2026 stands allowed.

The claim of the petitioner as far as the jamabandi standing in his name is concerned cannot be disputed. It has been observed that the State has come out with a statement that the petitioner had failed to produce concrete evidence with regard to the creation of jamabandi in his favour, however, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had acquired the title over the said land through a validly executed registered sale deed. Thus, if the State, now, does not acknowledge the said sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, then the only remedy, as held by this Court earlier, lies before a Competent Civil Court by the State to claim their title over the same.

Considering the aforesaid proposition of law, this Court finds that the writ petitioner has made out a case for himself and therefore directs the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, to take appropriate steps for reconsideration on the question of raiyatikaran of the land in question and pass an appropriate order, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner had been in possession over the land in question on account of a sale deed executed in his favour by a person, who claimed the property to be the ancestral property of her husband.

The Collector, Aurangabad, shall be approached by the petitioner within a period of two weeks with a copy of the present order and the Collector, Aurangabad shall pass an order with respect to the raiyatikaran of the petitioner, considering the claim of the petitioner afresh.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue the matter further for payment of compensation before the appropriate authority. The petitioner is also granted liberty to move afresh, if the grievances of the petitioner is not redressed.

The writ application stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.