Smt. Punam Kumari vs The State of Bihar and Others

Mridula Mishra, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Counsel appearing for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 to 10 though the name of the Learned Counsel for the respondents has appeared in the daily cause list. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Subdivisional Officer, Dhamdaha in Appeal No. 13 of 1999. The appeal was preferred by Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 against the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Dhamdaha in Original Case No. 14/1998-99 rejecting the petition filed by Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 u/s 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The dispute relates to the land measuring 4.13 acres situated at village Singhpur Diyara in the district of Purnea which originally belonged to Braj Mohan Dutta. In the family partition land fell in the share of Braj Mohan Dutta. One Bouku Mandal was recorded as Sikmidar with respect to this land. The landlord prayed to make correction in the revenue record by filing Title Suit No. 289 of 1955 which was decreed on 16.3.56. Against the judgment and decree Bauku Mandal, the recorded Sikmidar preferred a Misc. Case No. 98 of 1956 which was also dismissed. Against this order he preferred Title Appeal No. 78 of 1956/20 of 1957 which was also dismissed. Accordingly, the name of Bauku Mandal as Sikmidar with respect to the lands of Plot No. 55, 45, 46, 49 and 44 measuring 4.13 acres situated in Village Singhpur Diyara was corrected and cancelled by the judgment and order passed by competent Civil Court. Though Bouku Mandal''s name was cancelled from the records of rights, even then his legal heirs started disturbing the possession of the petitioner, who is the daughter of Braj Mohan Dutta, and in whose favour the deed of gift was executed by her father on 1.9.62. The deed of gift executed in favour of the petitioner was held to be genuine in the Land Ceiling Case No. 414 of 81-82, and the lands were excluded from the ceiling proceeding which was initiated against the father of the petitioner. Still Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 who are the legal heirs of Bauku Mandal, continued to disturb the possession of the petitioner proceedings u/s 107 and 144 Cr. P.C. were initiated which was also decided in favour of the petitioner. Having failed on all front Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 filed an application u/s 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act before the Circle Officer, Dhamdaha which was numbered as Original Case No. 14 of 1998-99. After making enquiry and considering the documents of both the parties the Circle Officer, Dhamdaha rejected the claim of Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 as Sikmidar refused the prayer for declaration of occupancy right with respect to the land in question. Against the order passed in Original Case No. 14 of 1998-99 respondents 3 to 10 preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 13 of 1998-99 before the Subdivisional Officer, Dhamdaha and by the impugned order the appeal has been allowed with a direction to the Circle Officer to proceed with the matter for declaration of occupancy right of respondent Nos. 3 to 10 with respect to the lands in question. The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the Sikmi rights of the ancestor of Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 in respect of the lands was nullified by the Civil Courts in Title Suit No. 249/55 and it was affirmed by the appellate Court. Considering the orders passed by the Civil Courts the respondents claim as legal heirs of the recorded sikmidars being in possession of the land in question has no legs to stand. The Subdivisional Officer, Dhamdaha has allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 without considering the judgment and orders passed by the Civil Courts whereby Sikmi right of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 has been nullified. For declaration of Kaimidar, anyone who claims his Sikmi rights over a land, it is essential that he must be in twelve years continuous possession of the land on the date when he filed an application for declaration of his occupancy right. That person''s right as Sikmidar as well as his claim of being Bataidar over the land must have been declared in a proceeding u/s 48E in case the claim of Sikmidat is disputed by the land owner. Apparently, there is no declaration in favour of the respondents nor the claim of their grandfather Bauku Mandal was found to be genuine on the basis of C.S. records of right. In the circumstances the declaration of occupancy right of Respondents 3 to 10 u/s 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act is bad, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

Considering the documents such as the judgment and decree of the Civil Courts as well as the order passed in the Ceiling proceeding I find that the impugned order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Subdivisional Officer, Dhamdaha, in Appeal No. 13 of 1999 is not sustainable. The revenue Court in Ceiling proceeding has found the deed of gift executed by her father as genuine after holding verification. According to the verification report the petitioner is in possession of the land. In the circumstances, the claim of the respondents 3 to 10 that they are in possession of the lands as Sikmidars is without any substance. Accordingly, the order dated 10.7.2000 (Annexure-9) passed by Subdivisional Officer, Dhamdaha in Appeal Case No. 13/99 is quashed. This application is allowed.