IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8485 of 2000 1 SATYA NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN YADAV. 2.AYODHI YADAV, SON OF RAMU YADAV. 3.DORIK YADAV, SON OF SURYA NARAYAN YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SANJHA GHAT-KHALIFA TOLA, P.S. MIRGANJ (DHAMDAHA), DISTRICT PURNIA ------PETITIONERS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHAMDAHA WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. 3.THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI AT DHAMDAHA WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. 4.SHRI MAHENDRA YADAV. 5.SHRI RAM BILASH YADAV. 6.SHRI AJIT KUMAR YADAV. SONS OF LATE BADAN YADAV @ RAM BADAN YADAV NO.4 TO 6 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SANJHA GHAT-KHALIFA TOLA, P.S. MIRGANJ (DHAMDAHA), DISTRICT PURNIA. ------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioners : Messrs Gajendra Kumar Jha, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary Rupesh Ranja,Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Dhurendra Kumar, J.C. to S.C. V For Respondents 4 to 6 : Mr Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate. ********** 12. 29.1.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents no.4 to 6 as also the State. The petitioners challege the order dated 20th of July, 2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha (respondent no.2) , as contained in Annexure 6, in Revenue Appeal Case No.15 of 1999 by which their appeal was dismissed and the order dated 21.9.1999 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Dhamdaha (respondent no.3), as contained in Annexure 5, was affirmed. 2 Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question. Secondly, it is submitted that the respondents did not acquire any right on account of the alleged transfer of land in their favour as the Sikmidar cannot transfer the land. Besides the above, it is submitted that the petitioners claim themselves to be the marginal farmers and as such, the proceedings under section 48 D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, could not have been initiated. This apart, as regards compensation payable to the petitioners was to be paid at the rate of 24 times than the actual rent of Rs.10/-, it is submitted that the compensation ought to have been 24 times of the actual rent payable to the landlord as has been held by this Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 2007(3) PLJR 769. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners were the marginal farmers nor they had made such claim before the Anchal Adhikari. As regards the question of possession and the right to transfer the Sikmi rights, the respondent- authorities have thoroughly considered the case on the basis of the report of the revenue officials as well as with regard to the possession and also the practice of transferring of Sikmi rights and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to agitate those questions of fact, which have been concluded on appreciation of the facts on the basis of the materials brought on the record. Considering the submissions of the parties and their 3 respective pleadings, it appears that the question with regard to the payment of compensation needs to be re-considered afresh and, as such, the matter is remitted back to the Anchal Adhikari, Dhamdaha (respondent no.3) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law with regard to the compensation payable to the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 21.9.1999, as contained in Annexure 5, and the order dated 20th of July, 2000, as contained in Annexure 6, are partly quashed to the extent of the order relating to the payment of compensation payable to the petitioners. The respondent no.3 shall pass a fresh order, as indicated above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order after giving notice to the parties concerned. In the result, the writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)