IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15071 of 2010 1. SRI GOSHWAMI TULSI PUSHTAKALAY, BIHTA, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SRI YOGENDRA SINGH S/O LATE NAWAL KISHORE SINGH R/O- VILL.+P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DANAPUR, DISTT.- PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS DANAPUR, DISTT.- PATNA 5. THE ANCHALADHIKAR, BIHTA BLOCK, BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 6. BHOLA SAO S/O LATE DEO SHARAN SAO R/O VILL.+P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 7. SHANTI DEVI W/O BHOLA SAO R/O VILL.+P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 8. PHULPATIA DEVI W/O LATE RAMJI SAO R/O VILL.+P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- For the petitioner…….Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Adv. For the respondent………………. Mr. V Nath Satish kumar, Sandip Singh Niraj Kumar. Adv. 3 08.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as respondent nos. 6 to 8. Petitioner is Shri Goshwami Tulsi Pushtakalay, through its secretary Shri Yogendra Singh. Prayer is to quash the entire proceeding initiated by the respondents in case no. 10/95-96 and the various orders passed therein including order dated 17.01.1997 (Annexure 15 and 16 series ) whereby the settlement case initiated at the instance of the private respondents was allowed and the lands in question were directed to be settled with the 2 respondents. The land in question pertains to Khata No. 250 Plot no. 1105 measuring an area of three decimals in Mauza- Bihata within the district of Patna. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1953 some gentries of the village constructed a library on major portion of the land known as Shri Goshwami Tulsi Pustakalaya. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the year 1956 the aforesaid land was settled by ex-landlord by way of a Sada Hukumnama as a result whereof the petitioner came in possession of land. Subsequently a proceeding for fixation of land rent in respect of the disputed land was initiated at the instance of the writ petitioner which gave rise to land fixation case no. 04/02-03. It appears from the record that the private respondent herein claiming themselves to be the landless persons also prayed for settlement of the government land which gave rise to lands settlement case no. 10 of 95-96. Both the matters were heard analogously on different dates by the respondent authority. Order dated 13.01.2006 passed in the aforesaid two proceedings indicate that both the parties herein participated therein and were afforded more than sufficient opportunities to contest the same. 3 Different reports were also called for. Parties were allowed to file their respective documents. On a consideration of the matter the respondent Anchal Adhikari by order dated 03.01.2006 found that the land in question was gair mazarua malik land and as such private respondents were eligible to be granted purcha in respect of part(s) of the land. Accordingly the claim of private respondent herein was allowed and lands were directed to be settled with the applicant( private respondents herein). It further appears therefrom that approval of such settlement with eligible person(s) was earlier obtained from the Sub-Divisional Officer Danapur. Accordingly the land settlement case filed on behalf of the private respondent herein was allowed. In the same order, the case of the petitioner (rent fixation case no. 04/02-03 herein) was also considered and on a consideration of entire materials on record including the claim of title made on behalf of the writ petitioner, it has been found that admittedly the land was gair mazarua malik land and the writ petitioner failed to demonstrate from the survey records or return filed by the ex-landlord that the land was settled in their name by way of Sada Hukumnama. 4 Having found so, the said respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to title over the land by way of a Sada Hukumnama executed in their favour by the ex- landlord sometimes in 1953, claim for fixation of rent was disallowed. The order further indicates that if the writ petitioners claim any construction of library which is of public use then in terms of the observation of the Commissioner, Department of Revenue, they may file separate proceeding and claim settlement of a piece of land in their favour. It appears that after having observed so the writ petitioner was given appropriate opportunity to place relevant documents regarding the management of the Pustakalaya/library and the permission of the Management for starting a library for public use. Thus, the claim raised on behalf of the writ petitioner for fixation of rent in respect of the disputed land was rejected. It further appears from the record that there is no pleading on record suggestive of the fact that the writ petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order approached the higher authority for settlement of land in their favour as observed in the order dated 03.01.2006(Annexure-A series). It is further evident from the materials on record 5 that the writ petitioner had approached the Commissioner, Department of Revenue for allotment of a piece of land for starting library, whereafter it was observed that such construction of library would be in public interest and as such if the library comes up with appropriate documents regarding constitution of committee then their claims for allotment of a piece of government land shall be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner without complying with the observation made therein has impugned the aforesaid order dated 03.01.2006 passed in land fixation case no. 04/02-03. Let it be clarified here that land settlement case no. 10/95-96 was initiated at the instance of the private respondents for allotment of small tracts of land in their favour as they were landless, whereas the land fixation case no. 04/02-03 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner library through its secretary for fixation of rent in respect of said land based on Sada Hukumnama. It appears that the petitioner has not approached the Superior Authority including respondent no. 1, in terms of the observations made by him which is reflected from 6 the order dated 03.08.2005 (part of Annexure- A series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 6 on earlier occasion made an effort to get the land settled in their favour in terms of provisions of the Bihar Privilege persons Homestead Tenancy Act, which was refused. It is the stand of the petitioner that once a refusal was made the Circle Officer was not authorised in law to review the said order and settled the land in favour of the private respondents. It is submitted that respondent no. 6 ought to have filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was not filed and as such respondent Circle Officer was precluded from proceeding with the lands settlement case no. 10/95-96. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner has absolutely no locus standi to file the present writ application. It is submitted that the petitioner has admitted in the application and thus it is admitted position that the lands in question was Gair mazarua malik land which stood vested with State of Bihar and 7 thereby the State of Bihar became the owner of the land in question. This being the admitted position, the provisions of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act shall not be applicable in the present case. It is stated that the writ petitioner led title over the land in question by virtue of a Sada Hukumnama executed by the ex-landlord in 1953 and on the strength whereof a claim was raised for fixation of rent, which was considered and rejected by a well reasoned order having noticed the fact that the land stood recorded in the survey records as Gair Mazarua land and as such the petitioner cannot bonafidely raise any dispute with regard to the settlement of land made in favour of the private respondents who were admittedly found to be eligible for such settlement. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly the land is recorded as Gair mazarua Malik land. Both the parties have admitted the status of the land. The claim of the petitioner is based on Sada Hukumnama executed in 1953 by the ex-landlord. The stand of the respondent is that they being eligible landless citizens applied for settlement of pieces/parts of land whereafter appropriate enquiries were made and after obtaining approval of the 8 respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, the same was allotted/settled in their favour by issuing appropriate purchas. They are in possession of the lands. Since a claim was raised based on Sada Hukumnama which was considered and rejected by the authorities by a well reasoned order, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot legitimately raise any dispute relating to the said land by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner could have approached the Revenue Authorities including the respondent Commissioner who had earlier passed an order on the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner and granted the petitioner library a liberty to approach the authority after completion of required formalities, but instead of treading on these lines the petitioner has directly approached this Court. The petitioner could have also instituted appropriate suit for the relief(s) which has also not been done. For all these reasons this Court is persuaded not to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The application is dismissed. Amrendra (K.K. Mandal,J.) 9