AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC 19 for the State.
The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:
“That by way of this writ application, the petitioner invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court prays for
issuance of an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by Hon’ble
Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna (Respondent no. 2) in B.L.T. Case No. 668 of 2016 contained in Annexure-6 and also the order
dated 30.04.2005 passed by learned D.C.L.R. Jagdishpur, Bhojpur (Respondent no. 5) in Misc. Appeal Case No. 02 of 2004-05 contained
in Annexure-2.â€
The brief facts of the case relevant for consideration of the present application is that the petitioner was a tenant on the land in question which was
recorded in the name of the father of the respondent no. 7 in the revisional survey khatiyan and jamabandi had also been created in his name.
Thereafter, the respondent no. 7 asked the petitioner to vacate the premises in August, 2004 due to default in payment of rent. The petitioner instead
got initiated Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2004 by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur in which by order dated 14.09.2004 the jamabandi in the name of the
father of the respondent no. 7 was cancelled. The respondent no. 7 challenged the same before the DCLR, Jagdishpur in Miscellaneous Appeal Case
No. 2 of 2004-05. The same was allowed by order dated 30.04.2005 and the original jamabandi in the name of the father of the respondent no. 7 was
restored. The petitioner thereafter moved before the Collector, Bhojpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2008-09 which was allowed in favour of the
petitioner by order dated 01.07.2010 by which the original order passed by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur dated 14.09.2004 was restored. In the
meantime, the respondent no. 7 had filed Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal
necessity which was decreed in his favour by judgment dated 30.04.2011 against which the petitioner has filed Title Appeal No. 860 of 2011 which is
pending. The respondent no. 7 challenged the order passed by the Collector dated 01.07.2010 before the Commissioner, Patna Division in Revision
Case No. 135 of 2010 rejecting the same. The respondent no. 7 thereafter moved before the High Court in CWJC No. 3921 of 2014 which was
disposed off by order dated 20.05.2016 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bihar Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Tribunal’). In terms thereof, the respondent no. 7 filed BLT Case No. 668 of 2016 before the Tribunal which was allowed by order dated
17.12.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land belongs to the State of Bihar and wrongly jamabandi was created in the name of the
father of the respondent no. 7 and, thus, the orders passed by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur; the Collector, Bhojpur as well as the Divisional
Commissioner, Patna are correct.
Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the action of the petitioner is absolutely ill-misconceived. He has also filed Title Suit No. 407 of
2005 for correction of the survey entry made in the name of the father of the respondent no. 7 alleging that it should be in the name of the State of
Bihar. The Court has no doubt that the present application is absolutely frivolous. The fact that the petitioner, who has no locus standi to challenge the
jamabadi in the name of the father of the respondent no. 7, as he is not a claimant, could in no view of the matter, have filed such suit espousing the
case of the State. It was for the State to either file suit or go for cancellation for jamabandi, but based on the application of the petitioner and the stand
taken that he has filed Title Suit No. 407 of 2005 for correction of survey entry which is pending, the Court would only observe that such title suit is
frivolous and not maintainable. In this connection, the Court, concurring with the findings of the Tribunal, would reproduce paragraphs no. 3, 4, 5 and 6
of the order passed by the Tribunal, which read as under:
“3. After considering the submissions and perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the land in question recorded in survey
plot No. 179/3114, has been directed to be so recorded in the survey khatiyan by the order passed earlier under Section 103 B.T. Act and
thereafter in Case No. 948 of 1973 under Section 108 B.T. Act. This order passed by the revenue authority was not challenged by the state-
opposite parties. The jamabandi was accordingly created for the land in question in the name of the petitioner by order dated 19.09.1986
passed by the Circle Officer.
The opposite party No. 6 was tenant of the petitioner over the premises situated in the above said plot. There is no dispute on behalf of
the state opposite parties that an eviction decree was passed against the opposite party No. 6 and the possession over the premises in the
suit was delivered to the petitioner.
Surprisingly however the opposite party No. 6 filed petition before the Circle Officer complaining against the creation of jamabandi over
the above plot in the name of the petitioners. The Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2004-05 was initiated on the petition filed by the opposite
party No. 6 before the Circle Officer who by order dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure- 3) directed for cancellation of jamabandi with regard to
the above plot which was running in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners filed Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2004-05 before the D.C.L.R.
who by order dated 30.04.2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer. There is again no dispute between
the parties that this order passed by the D.C.L.R. was never challenged by the State of Bihar and had attained finality. However again the
opposite party No. 6 filed Misc. Case No. 11 of 2008-09 before the Collector of the district where in the opposite party No. 6 further took
the plea that the T.S. No. 407 of 2005 had been filed by the opposite party No. 6 for declaration that the plot in question in fact belonged to
the state-opposite parties. By order dated 01.07.2010, the Collector of the district allowed the Misc. Case No. 11 of 2008-09 and set aside
the order passed by the D.C.L.R. in the above said Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2004-05. The revisional authority by the impugned order, in the
revision filed by the petitioner has affirmed the order passed by the Collector of the district.
The aforesaid background facts leave no room for doubt that a proxy litigation is being fought by the opposite party No. 6 who was the
erstwhile tenant of the petitioner and against whom the petitioner had got eviction decree and recovery of possession in pursuance of the
said decree in accordance with law.â€
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.