IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15645 of 2004 1. Kamleshwari Yadav, 2. Basant Yadav, 3. Gogal Yadav @ Muni Yadav, all sons of Late Newa Yadav, 4. Anil Kumar Yadav, 5. Pankaj Kumar Pushpam, both sons of Sri Raj Kumar Yadav, 6. Birendra Yadav, son of Late Ram Swaroop Yadav, 7. Ram Sharan Yadav, 8. Guru Sharan Yadav @ Ramdhin Yadav, both sons of Late Sri Chand Yadav, 9. Dev Narayan Yadav, son of Late Ramjivan Yadav, 10. Jang Bahadur Yadav, son of Late Saryug Yadav, all residents of village Panidah, Ps Hasanpur, District Samastipur – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Samastipur. 4. The Addl. Collector, Samastipur. 5. The District Fisheries Officer, Samastipur. 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Hasanpur Anchal, Samastipur. 7. Hasanpur Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti (Simit), Hasanpur through its Secretary, Ram Bilas Sahani, Hasanpur, PS Hasanpur, District Samastipur – Respondents. 6 18.8.2010 The petitioners are claiming that 15 bighas, 19 kathas and 18 dhurs of lands appertaining to C.S. plot nos. 544 and 546, Khata nos. 96 and 264, corresponding to revisional survey plot nos. 839, 840, 841. 842, 852, 853, 855, 856, 865 and 866 in village Panidah, Anchal Hasanpur in the district of Samastipur. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands in question were settled by Darbhanga Maharaj in their favour in the year 1949. Accordingly Jamabandi was started in the name of the petitioners which is recorded as 325, 395, 400, 401 and 402. The petitioners have been paying rent to the State of Bihar with respect to the aforesaid lands. In the revisional survey plot nos. 841 and 852 measuring 2.5 acres described as Dhanhar land and a ditch was recorded in the name of State of Bihar. The petitioners filed an application challenging the entry of the name of State of Bihar vide Case 2 Nos.2026/1984 and 2564/1984 under sections 103 and 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The order was passed in favour of the petitioners and the plots were recorded in their name in the revisional survey. In the year 1996 the District Fisheries Officer sought to settle the lands described aforesaid to Fishermen Cooperative Societies. The petitioners resisted the settlement and claimed that the lands belonged to them and as such the State had no right to make settlement in favour of any third party. Thereafter, the petitioners gave an application to the District Fisheries Officer that settlement should not be made in favour of any third party, as it would create law and order problem. Accordingly by order, dated 2.7.1997 (Annexure 9) the District Fisheries Officer restrained the settlee from going over plot nos. 544 and 546. This led the settlee to file an objection before the Additional Collector, Samastipur, who passed an order on 9.8.1996 in which it has been stated that ‘Panidah’ / Jalkar appertaining to khata no. 95, plot nos. 944 and 946 has been recorded as Jheel and has declared to be a Sairat, and directed that the Sairat register should be corrected and the name of the Jalkar should be included in it (Annexure 10). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Additional Collector, Samastipur could not have passed an order to include the petitioners’ lands in the Sairat without giving them an opportunity of hearing and without cancelling the Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioners. On perusal of the records, different reports of the Circle 3 officer and the District Fisheries Officer, it would appear that the petitioners were settled with the lands by Darbhanga Maharaj which has not been cancelled by instituting any proceeding under section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. It is also apparent that since the time of vesting of Zamindari, the petitioner have remained in possession over the lands in question and have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The first time their right over the lands was challenged was in the year 1996 when there was an order to settle the Jalkar (Jheel) in question with respondent no.7. It is also true that since the settlement, respondent no. 7 has not been able to exercise his rights over the lands in question. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in fact the State does not have any remedy in view of the fact that the petitioners have remained in uninterrupted possession over the lands (water body) in question since the date of settlement. I am not inclined to come to a finding regarding the plea of adverse possession in the present writ petition and it may be raised in an appropriate proceeding. It may be pointed out here that after the entry of name of the petitioners in the revisional survey and in view of the fact that two such plots that were entered in the name of State of Bihar have subsequently been corrected vide Annexures 16 and 17, under the Bihar Tenancy Act, it would appear that the State cannot deny the petitioners’ title or possession in the manner in which it has been done, i.e, by entering the lands in the Sairat register. If the State wishes to challenge the title or possession of the petitioners, it would 4 have only done so either by instituting a proceeding under section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or by filing a suit before the competent court of law. The summary manner in which the Additional Collector has ordered for entry of petitioners’ lands in the Sairat register is absolutely illegal, against the law and the principles of natural justice. Considering all the facts of this case, the order contained in memo no. 1319, dated 9.8.1996 (Annexure 10) passed by the Additional Collector, Samastipur and the order, dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure 11) passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division respectively are quashed. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)