CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5382 OF 1992 1. Mahendra Singh son of Chandarika Singh 2. Ram Nath Prasad son of Deonath Prasad 3. Nand Kumar Singh son of Rama Nand Singh 4. Kanti Devi W/o Janardan Pandey 5. Sheo Narain Singh son of Late Laldhari Singh 6. Dinesh Singh son of Suresh Singh 7. Mahabir Yadav son of Budhan Yadav 8. Satrudhan Singh son of Munshi Singh 9. Suresh Singh son of Sarju Singh 10. Ram Payare Lal son of Faujdar Yadav 11. Bhuneshwar Sharma son of Radhe Shyam Sharma 12. Bishwanath Singh son of Ram Lakhan Singh 13. Bhim Singh son of Kamdeo Singh 14. Upendra Singh son of Deocharan Singh ----------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya. 3. Anchal Adhikari, Chandauti Town, Gaya. -------------- Respndents. For The Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For The Respondent : (SC8) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ********************* A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner claimed themselves to be the owner of piece and parcel of land which is part of Khata No. 108 Plot No.528 & 561 having an area of 14 acres and 33 decimals situated in the village Chandauti in the town and district of Gaya. They claimed to be bonafide purchasers from one Kishori Mohan Khan by several sale deeds executed by him. They rushed to the High - 2 - Court because initially a notice under the Public Land Encroachment Act was issued to them vide Annexure – 4 series in April 1992 and even before they could respond or react to the notices, a direction was issued to deploy a Magistrate and Police Force to evict these petitioners from their land and dwelling house without their being an adjudication on the issue whether the land in question was a public land under the definition of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. When the matter was heard in admission the court stayed the operation of the order contained in annexure – 5 vide order dated 02.07.1992, as also recorded as a question of law whether a character of the land having been declared as raiyati land in a proceeding initiated under Section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, whether the land in question could still be treated as public land? Attention of the court was drawn and is drawn again to adjudication under section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which was case no. 3/1973-74, the order is dated 22.08.1981. A perusal of this order would show that the historical background to the origin of the land, the ownership and the subsequent transfers thereafter was gone into quite a detail by the competent authority. A categorical finding came to be recorded that since the land was alienated way back in the year 1938, much before the statutory date fixed under the Act which - 3 - was 01.01.1946, it was not possible to hold that the transfer was with the object of defeating the Act. The transaction having been found to be valid therefore, all right, title and interest flowing from there. These petitioners have derived benefit now cannot be thrown out on the basis of a notice under the Public Land Encroachment Act and that too without any adjudication. There seems to be some other litigation also on the piece and parcel of land which was a Title Suit no. 59 of 1992 and vide a judgment dated 24th day of February, 1996, the suit had been decreed declaring the land to be raiyati land but the subsequent decision or declaration is only a circumstance to show that these petitioners are not rank outsiders or trespassers. Though a counter affidavit has been filed where serious rebuttal has been made with regard to the nature of land as well as the sequence of transfer but there is no satisfactory explanation as to why and how the respondents were in a tearing hurry not even to pass any order with regard to the proceeding which was initiated under Public Land Encroachment Act, which was case no. 96/1991-92 and a direction was issued in terms of Annexure – 5 to use force to throw them out from their land and house which they have constructed over a period of time. The time frame since when the notices was issued - 4 - and the consequential direction having been passed in Annexure – 5 shows that the respondents did not have patience to even adjudicate the issue without proper opportunity being given to the petitioners in this regard. The functionaries of the State are expected to abide by the law and also work with the basic ethos of Rule of Law. The petitioners to that extent have succeeded in making out a case for interference with regard to the direction and order passed in Annexure – 5. Annexure – 5 stands quashed and writ application of the petitioners is allowed. If the respondents are still keen in pursuing the matter, they shall have to give fresh notice to the petitioners, since the matter relates to the year 1992, give them an opportunity of hearing and then render an opinion on the deliberations with regard to the claim and counter claim and then pass an appropriate order. The intervener application filed is also disposed of without taking cognizance of the merit of the application one way or the other. Patna High Court The 27th Day of November, 2008, NAFR/AFR Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)