Letters Patent Appeal No.701 OF 2007 ******* Against the order dated 12th July, 2004 passed in CWJC no. 4365 of 2000 passed by a single Judge. ******* THE STATE OF BIHAR--------------Appellant Versus 1. AJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI RAM BAHADUR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE ENAYATPUT, TOLA PILUE, P.O. AND P.S. DAUDPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. 2(a). SUBH NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE ENAYATPUR,TOLA PILUE, P.O.& P.S.DAUDPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. 3.AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI SUBH NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-ENAYATPUR, TOLA PILUE, P.O. AND P.S. DAUDPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. 4.MUKTI NATH SINGH, S/O SRI SUBH NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-ENAYATPUR, TOLA PILUE, P.O. AND P.S. DAUDPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. -PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5.THE COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 6. THE COLLECTOR, SARAN CHAPRA DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA. 7.THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN, CHAPRA. 8.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SADAR CHAPRA, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. 9.THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS SADAR, CHAPRA DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA. 10.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANJHI, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. 11. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, MANJHI DISTRICT- SARAN, CHAPRA. 12. THE REVENUE KARAMCHARI CIRCLE MANJHI, ENAYATPUR PANCHAYAT, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. 13.THE PANCHAYAT SEWAK, BLOCK MANJHI, ENAYATPUR PANCHAYAT, DISTRICT-SARAN CHAPRA. 14. BAIDYANATH SAH, S/O LATE SHEODHARI SAH, 15. SATAN BHAR, S/O RAM PRASAD, 2 16.(a)SUMITRA DEVI 16.(b)GAUTAM PRASAD, BOTH R/O VILLAGE ENAYATPUR, TOLA DUDHAILA, P.S DAUDPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN. 17. RAMAYAN BHAR, S/O MARAI BHAR, 18. JAIPAL BHAR @ JAGLAL SAH, S/O BAIDYA NATH SAH, BOTH R/O VILLAGE ENAYATPUR, TOLA DUDHAILA, P.S. DAUDPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. -----------Respondents ******* For the Appellant : Mr Ajoy , SC 3 (Ceiling) For Respondent no.3: Mr. Narendra Kumar For respondent no.4: Mr. Rajeev Kr.Singh ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA S.K.SINGH,ACJ, S.K.SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant,State of Bihar, and learned counsels appearing for the private respondents. 2. The respondents succeeded in getting 16.49 acres of land freed from ceiling proceeding on the ground that those lands were not of the Mahanth against whom 3 land ceiling proceeding had commenced and belonged to the respondents / writ petitioners. Since they succeeded at the revisional stage, by that time the land claimed by the respondents and later released in their favour from the ceiling proceeding had already been declared surplus and some part of it appeared to have been settled by the State of Bihar in favour of Purcha holders. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition bearing CWJC no. 4365 of 2000, the District Magistrate, Saran, filed an affidavit on 14th May, 2003 taking the stand that on behalf of the State he was prepared to either deliver possession of those lands in favour of the writ petitioners or else the State would be ready to pay market price of the land declared surplus. By the time the writ petition came to be finally disposed of by the order under appeal dated 12th July, 2004, through a Gazette 4 Notification dated 30th July, 2003 the lands claimed by the respondents were de-notified and the State again created revenue records in favour of the respondents but this fact could not be brought on record of the writ petition till its disposal. The order under appeal, under the impression that the entire 16.49 acres of land of the respondents had been retained by the State of Bihar, asked the writ petitioners to exercise their option. They opted for price of the land at the market rate and, accordingly, the writ Court directed the Collector to ensure payment of price of the land of the writ petitioners treating that they had been distributed in favour of Purcha holders, at the market rate within a period of three months. 4. Later, when the State and its authorities found out that the correct state of affairs had not been brought on record and if value of the entire land at market 5 rate was to be paid to the writ petitioners, they would get, according to the State, double advantage, this appeal was preferred after a delay of about three years. After hearing the parties, in the interest of justice the delay was condoned on 17th August, 2009. On that date an order was passed directing District Judge, Saran at Chapra, to depute a Judicial Officer for local inspection and to submit a report relating to the persons in possession of the disputed land. Now, the report submitted by 9th Subordinate Judge, Chapra, dated 28th August, 2009 is available on record at Flag “A”. According to that report the parties including respondents of this appeal admitted that most of the lands out of total area of 16.49 acres was now free from dispute because after exclusion of those plots from ceiling proceeding vide Gazette Notification dated 13th July, 2003, the possession of respondents or their vendees 6 were restored. The report discloses that dispute persisted only in respect of major portion of plot no.2533 which was therefor inspected. It is apparent from the report that .96 acres of lands had been acquired by thirty one Purcha holders and 40 decimals of lands had been acquired by five purcha holders under Bihar Privileged Persons (Homestead) Tenancy Act and some others lands from same plot were also reported to be under possession of seven persons who have been described as strangers but in possession without Purcha. The names of those seven persons are mentioned at serial 37 to 43 of page 4 of the report. After the name of forty third person there is a note that all of them had not shown any paper of land. Their statements were recorded. The statements have been made part of the report. After that brief note, the report describes the undisputed plots made free from ceiling over which there is no dispute ( as admitted 7 by the respondents before the Judicial Officer who held the inspection). 5.On behalf of the appellant-State it has been submitted that it is not willing to take action against the landless settlees in whose favour Purchas had been issued over 96 decimals of plot no. 2533 and, therefore, it is prepared to pay the price of those lands at market rate as directed by the writ court. It is further case of the appellant that so far as 40 decimals of land for which different persons have obtained orders in their favour through proceedings under the Bihar Privileged Persons (Homestead) Tenancy Act, the responsibility of seeking their eviction according to law does not lie upon the State because they obtained Purcha under that Act through legal process against the landholders and hence the responsibility of taking action against such five persons named in the report should be fastened upon 8 the respondents who claimed to be purchasers from the original landholders, the Mahant. Same is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of land found in the possession of seven strangers without Purchas. It has been submitted that had State issued Purcha and settled them recently after the lands were declared surplus, the State would have either got those persons evicted or would have paid market price of those lands also but that is not the position in fact as is apparent from the statement of those persons recorded by the Judicial Officer and hence the responsibility of taking action against those strangers in accordance with law should also be fastened upon the respondents. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the nature of order passed by the writ Court and the facts appearing from the report of the Judicial Officer including the statement of seven persons described as 9 strangers in possession without Purcha over certain parts of plot no.2533, we are of the view that State has rightly offered to pay market price of 96 decimals of land to the respondents. Such present market price should be determined and paid to the respondents at the earliest and in any case within three months, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The State will be free to realize interest from the Officers found responsible for delying the payment of market price. 7. So far as dispute relating to 40 decimals of land in possession of five persons who claimed possession on account of Purcha obtained through proceedings under Bihar Privileged Persons (Homestead) Tenancy Act as well as in respect of land shown to be in possession of seven strangers without Purcha is concerned, we are of the view that State cannot be held responsible for creating possession over those lands because 10 the possession, as claimed by the persons found in possession, is on account of either legal proceeding against the landholders under the Bihar Privileged Persons (Homestead) Tenancy Act or on account of alleged settlement, verbal or otherwise, made by the Mahanth. May be, the respondents can show better title and claim for possession over those lands but that must be done through an appropriate proceeding. The respondents will be free to pursue their claim of title, possession or mesne profits over those lands in accordance with law through appropriate proceeding. 8. With this observation, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court, 17th November, 2009, AAhmad/ (NAFR) 11