IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1321 of 2011 1. PREM CHAND SINHA SON OF LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF DRAMPADI APARTMENT NO.6, SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA 2. PYARE CHAND SINHA SON OF LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF DOGAR LANE 18/22/1 KOLKATTA-29 TALIGANJ 3. PRADEEP CHAND SINHA SON OF LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF REGENCY APARTMENT QUARTER NO. NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY PATNA, ALL THE THREE PETITIONERS THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANOJ SINGH BY REGD. POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 8.5.2007,8.5.2007 AND 26.4.2007 EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS. …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR …RESPONDENTS ----------- 05. 29.04.2011 Heard both sides. Initially the application was filed seeking following relief(s) as would appear from paragraph 1 of the writ application which reads thus:- That this is an application for issuing an appropriate writ/order or direction to the respondents quashing the proceeding of enquiry initiated at the instance of respondent no.2 Principal Secretary Land Reforms including his oral order of restrain of construction and status quo over plot no.1671 area 642 acres which has been repeatedly found by the Hon’ble High Court, Civil Court as well as revenue authorities to be exclusively belonging to the petitioner’s as his private property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be pressing second part of the relief wherein a prayer has been made to set aside the oral restraint order respecting plot 2 no.1671 measuring an area 6.42 acres. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid land along with other plots were settled with the ancestor of the petitioners by a registered Patta executed on 2.6.1942 sometime in the year 1982-83. A land acquisition proceeding being Case No. 3/1982- 83 was started for acquisition of certain land including the aforesaid plot no.1671. A writ proceeding being CWJC No.3203 of 1993 was filed by the petitioners challenging the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding which was subsequently dropped. This Court thus gave the liberty to get the right title and interest determined in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the year 1996 a suit being Title Suit No.128/96 was filed by the State of Bihar in the court of Sub Judge IV, Ara for declaration of title and possession of the State over the said plot no.1671. Simultaneously, a three-man committee was also constituted under orders of the Collector to enquire into the status of the land. It is the case of the petitioner that in such inquiry, it was found that the said plot is a raiyati one and did belong to the petitioners. Part of the said report has been enclosed as Annexure-1. Respondent-Collector in the light of the conclusion(s) arrived at by the said committee obtained legal advice of the government pleader whereafter a petition was filed in the pending Title Suit No. 128/96 and by a proceeding dated 13.8.2009 the same was withdrawn. It is the case of the petitioners that persons inimical to them again approached the respondent-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and 3 Land Reforms whereafter an oral direction was issued to the revenue authority below him to restrain the petitioners from making construction on the plot in question. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the backdrop of facts appearing from record such oral direction which persuaded the District Collector to pass the impugned order dated 19th January,2010 as contained in annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit is erroneous and bad in law. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents which is on record. Learned counsel for the State referring to annexure-B to the said counter affidavit submits that enquiry report (Annexure-1) was forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner who, after perusing the same, made specific queries as would appear therefrom having bearing on the claim of the writ petitioners. It is thus submitted that the said enquiry is still going on and, as such, the respondent authority had issued the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure-4). Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that oral order by the said functionary is alien to law particularly when the same infringes the right of a citizen to enjoy it properly. It is submitted that no court will give effect to the such order. It is contended that there has already been an inquiry at the instance of the authority which found the bona fide right title and interest of the petitioners on the plot in question. It is submitted that construction, if any, shall be made by the petitioners or their transferees at their own risk(s). 4 From materials on record this much is evident that a suit was filed by the State-respondents for declaration of title and possession in respect of the land in question being plot no. 1671 which subsequently got withdrawn. Three-man committee constituted by the respondent-Collector on a consideration of materials available on record, prima facie found that the subject land is a raiyati land and belongs to the descendants of the original settlees. Annexure-4 reads as under:- ^^ mi;qZDr fo’k; ds laca/k esa vkt fnukad 18-01-2010 dks nwjHkk’k ij iz/kku lfpo] jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds }kjk fn;s x;s ekSf[kd funsZ”k ds vkyksd esa vkidks funs”k fn;k tkrk gS fd drhjk rkykc ls lacaf/kr ekeyk jktLo foHkkx esa fopkjk/khu gS A vr% vxys vkns”k rd fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ dk;Z bl rkykc esa ugha djk;sa rFkk ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[ksa A ** It thus appears from bare perusal of the said order that petitioners have been restrained from enjoying their property by an oral order. In the backdrop of facts emanating from the records, this Court cannot countenance such order directly infringing the right of a citizen to enjoy his/her property resting on an oral instruction of the higher revenue authority. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the said order as contained in annexure-4 be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the application is allowed. Order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure-4) is hereby quashed and set aside. Hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )