IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8081 of 2011 ASHOK KUMAR RAJGARIAH, SON OF LATE SITA RAM RAJGARIAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SAHEED PARK, LAL BAZAR, P.S. BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER(SADAR) BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BETTIAH SADAR, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. THE COURT AMIN, OFFICE OF SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BETTIAH WEST CHAMPARAN 6. RAM PRASAD BISHWAKARMA, SON OF LATE JAGANNATH MISTRY, RESIDENT OF GULABBAGH POLICE STATION-BETTIAH TOWN, WEST CHAMPARAN …RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh, :Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh & : Mr. Uma Kant Prasad For Respondent No.6 :Mr.Bimlesh Kr. Pandey For the State :Mr.Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG-3 ----------- 03. 18.05.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner questions the sustainability of the order dated 4.4.2011, passed by respondent-S.D.O. Bettiah in Demarcation Case No.12 of 2011 (Ram Prasad Vishwakarma vs. Ashok Kumar Rajgariha). According to the petitioner, total area of land appertaining to khata no.22(old),67(new), plot no.123 is 12 katha and one dhur. The said land(s) originally stood recorded in the name of Sharat Chandra Ganguly and others. Ramlal Tatwa was recorded as Sikmidar in respect of the land in the records of rights prepared under section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The recorded tenant over the period of time 2 alienated the land(s) in the year 1942 in favour of one Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal who, in turn, transferred five kathas and 15 dhurs to the father of the petitioner. According to respondent no.6, there is no document produced on behalf of the petitioner to show that aforesaid Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal had purchased the land(s) from Sharat Chandra Ganguly. It is further the case of respondent no.6 that father of the petitioner had already alienated the land(s) more than the area of land(s) claimed to have been purchased from the aforesaid Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding was taken up by the respondent authority under the newly enacted law called the Land Disputes Resolution(Bihar) Act,2009. He refers to several provisions of the said Act to show that the order does not conform to the requirement(s) of the said Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6, on the other hand, submits that the said proceeding was taken up by the authority under the provisions contained in Bengal Survey Act, 1875. He relies on the provisions contained in sections 41 & 42 of the Bengal Survey Act, 1875 and section 286 of the Bihar Survey and Settlement Manual, 1959. A bare perusal of the order would show that the same does not spell out the provisions of the Act in which the application of respondent no.6 was entertained and the order was passed. Further, it appears that after noticing the case of both 3 the parties a conclusion has been arrived at that by order impugned title of none of the parties is going to be affected. Both the parties are in agreement before this Court that the writ petitioner has already filed a suit in the court of learned Munsif, Bettiah, a copy whereof is already on record as Annexure-4 in which respondent no.6 is one of the defendants. This Court is unable to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 as it is not apparent from the impugned order that the respondent-S.D.O. invoked its jurisdiction under any provision of the Act. Thus, in the fitness of things, the matter is required to be remanded to respondent no.3(the S.D.O.(Sadar) Bettiah) to pass a fresh order disclosing the provisions of the Act in which it has exercised its jurisdiction. Since the matter is being remitted back to the said authority, this Court expects the said respondent shall consider afresh the case of both the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The order dated 4.4.2011 passed in Demarcation Case No. 12 of 2011, shall not preclude the respondent-S.D.O. Bettiah from passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )