IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6295 of 2002 1 CHITRANJAN KUMAR YADAV 2. Niranjan Kumar Yadav @ Niranjan Yadav Both sons of Fanindra Lal Yadav, Resident of village- Baghmara, Police Station- Krityanand Nagar, District- Purnea ---- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnia 3. The Anchal Adhikari at Krityanand Nagar within the District of Purnia 4. Bageshwar Yadav son of Shri Bande Lal Yadav, resident of village- Baghmara, Police Station- Krityanand Nagar, District- Purnia. ---- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners :Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Ravindra Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 :Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr. Amar Karim, JC to SC V _________ 3/ 2-Feb-09 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, respondent No.4 and State. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnia (respondent no.2) in Appeal No.9 of 1998-1999; by which the Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 13.4.1998 (Annexure-6) passed by the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no.3) in Case No.98 of 1994-1995 under Section 48(D) of the Bihar Tenancy Act was upheld. 2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that respondent no.3 committed serious error of law while directing for payment of compensation taking into consideration the rent payable to the State instead of 24 times of the rent payable to the landlord under B.T.Act. Second submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the original application filed by respondent no.4 claiming as an occupancy under raiyat of the lands of the widow of late Anant Narayan and as such no application was maintainable against her. Learned counsel also submits that respondent no.3 ought not to have relied upon report of the “Halka Karmchari” and as a matter of fact he himself should have made a local inspection with regard to possession. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 on the other hand does not dispute that the compensation payable to the land holder would be 24 times of the rent payable to the landlord under B.T. Act. However, as regards submission of the petitioners that no application could have been entertained against the widow, it is submitted that claim of the 3 respondents were not against her. Besides the above, it is submitted that a civil suit was also filed by the petitioners, vide Title Suit No.50 of 1996, the same is pending , a copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit whereby relief had been sought for declaration of title and possession with respect to the land in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the submission of the petitioners that compensation payable to the landlord ought to have been at the rate of 24 times rent payable to the landlord under B.T. Act and not to the State has force. The same have not been considered by Anchal Adhikari while passing order dated 13.4.1998 as contained in Annexure -6 and also the order dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure- 7) by the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.2) while affirming the order of Anchal Adhikari. In this view of the matter, order dated 14.8.2001 passed by respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure -7 is quashed to the extent of considering the claim for payment of 4 the compensation amount payable to the landlord, the rest of the matters are concluded question of fact taking into consideration the materials on the record. As such, I do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioners that order dated 13.4.1998 as contained in Annexure-6 as also order dated 14.8.2001 as contained in Annexure-7 should be interfered with except to the direction for re-consideration with regard to the payment of compensation. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with above observation/direction. chauhan (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)