IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7890 of 2011 ============================================= Smt.Raj Kumari Devi, W/o Late Ramashankar Prasad, D/o Late Laxami Ram, R/o Mohalla Piparpanti Road, Chowk Buxar, C/o Hotel P.O. Buxar, P.S. Buxar, District Buxar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate-cum-the Collector of the District Buxar at and P.O. Buxar, District Buxar 3. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar at and P.O. Buxar, District Buxar 4. The Addl. Collector of the Distt. Buxar at P.O. Buxar, District Buxar 5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate at P.O. Buxar, District Buxar 6. The Anchal Adhikari/Circle Officer at P.O. Buxar Block Office District Buxar .... .... Respondents ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh and Brij Mohan Kumar Singh For the State : M/s Prabhakar Tekriwal, GA 1 & Prabhat Kr. Singh, AC to GA 1 ============================================= 6 16-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Collector of the District Buxar as contained in Annexure 9. The petitioner also seeks direction to the authorities for compliance of order dated 24.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10415 of 2009 which is appended to the writ 2 application as Annexure 8. Further, the quashing of order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Anchala Adhikari, Buxar as a consequence to the order dated 17.1.2011 as passed by the Collector as contained in Annexure 9 is also sought to be quashed. A prayer has also been made for giving necessary direction to the concerned Anchala Adhikari to accept rent and grant rent receipts for the lands in dispute measuring a total area of 8.65 acres of the village Pandepatti of Buxar District, in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the proceeding of Title Appeal No. 63 of 2009 filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 75 of 1992 which is pending in the Court of the District Judge, Buxar or alternatively for a direction to the court concerned for deciding the aforesaid appeal within a specified period. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and reply thereof has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. This case has chequered history as it appears that it had come before this Court on several earlier occasions for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards Annexure 7 and Annexure 8 to demonstrate 3 that even after a positive order passed by this Court the petitioner is not being allowed to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in his favour. In the order dated 24.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10415 of 2009 (Annexure 8) brief facts of the case have been discussed. It has been noticed that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 73 of 1968 came to be challenged in another suit filed by the State after about 24 years being Title Suit No. 75 of 1992. However, the suit was dismissed on 21.8.2009 by the Additional Munsif II, Buxar on the ground of the same being barred by principle of res judicata. However, it has been noticed in the aforesaid order that despite judicial pronouncement in favour of the petitioner her harassment is not coming to an end and the directions issued by the superior authorities or the district administration have merely remained on paper as nothing substantive has come out by way of action to prevent the harassment of the petitioner by some vested interest. The writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the Collector – cum – District Magistrate, Buxar as well as the Superintendent of Police, Buxar to get the matter examined and extend whatever protection is available to the petitioner in the light of the judicial pronouncements. Upon this direction, it appears, that an inquiry committee was constituted and the 4 Additional Collector, vide memo no. 030967 dated 10.5.2010 had submitted the joint report of the said inquiry committee before the Collector. The Collector on the basis of the report of the said joint committee had rejected the prayer of the petitioner and declared the aforesaid lands described in Annexure 9 itself measuring 8.65 decimals belonging to “Sarwa Sadharan”. Learned counsel has pointed out that by passing such type of order the decree passed in favour of the petitioner has not only been questioned but the same has been surprisingly annulled by the Collector, Buxar as there is already a declaration in favour of the petitioner with regard to their right, title and interest over the land in question. The basis for passing such order it appears to be the fact that the case of the State Government was not properly put up before the concerned court and some ex parte order has been obtained by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not explain the impugned order. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State taking stand that later on by an order dated 9.7.2011 as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit, the last two paragraphs of the impugned order, which are the operating passage, have been relaxed. Thus, it is contend that in that view of the matter the order would have not effect. However, he also 5 could not justify that the decree passed by a court of law can be treated in the said manner but it is contended that perhaps this was the reason that the authority concerned, after relaxing the same, has made a roll back by relaxing the operative part of the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the State submits that a title appeal has already been preferred before the District Judge against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 75 of 1992 and the same has been admitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on this point, submits that when the matter was pending before the trial court, the issue of res judicata was not being decided at the first instance and the matter remained pending for several years then Civil Revision No. 2110 of 2006 was preferred before this Court and this Court has opined that only two documents were sufficient for deciding the issue of res judicata and for that purpose the case should not have been kept pending for 16 years. A direction was issue to decide the res judicata immediately and as such the issue was decided. Learned counsel submits that on self same ground, i.e., the res judicata is being mixed question of fact and law should have been decided after appreciation of evidence which was not found plausible by this Court in the order dated 30.09.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 2110 of 2006, the Title Appeal No. 6 63 of 2009 has been admitted. Thus, it is contended that the appellate proceeding should be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next submitted that relaxing two paragraphs of the impugned order would not be sufficient rather the entire order should go because this Court while passing the order as contained in Annexure 8, had not authorized the authority concerned to test the correctness of the decree. In view of the stand of the parties, I am of the opinion that such order could not have been passed by the concerned authorities. The direction by the court was to examine the matter of harassment of the petitioner by the vested inherent and extend whatever protection is available to the petitioner in the light of the judicial pronouncements. The judicial pronouncement itself could not be questioned by the authorities. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the entire order as contained in Annexure 9 as has been found above cannot be sustained in law. As a result the same is quashed. However, the question of contempt is in issue in a separate proceeding in M.J.C. No. 2222 of 2010 that is still pending. Therefore, that issue is to be decided in the aforesaid proceeding itself. So far the next issue raised regarding the 7 admission of title appeal is concerned, it appears from the ordersheet of the appellate court that the appeal has been admitted after hearing the appellants and a notice has been issued to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have already entered appearance in the appeal by filing Vakalatnama. Thus, in my view all the relevant points which have been raised by the petitioner before this Court with regard to maintainability or the merit of the appeal should be brought to the notice of the appellate court. Since this is a long drawn battle between the parties, as has been noticed above, I deem it proper in the interest of justice that the appeal concerned should be decided at its earliest. In above view of the matter I direct the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority along with a certified copy of this order within six weeks and thereafter the appellate court shall fix a date of hearing and decide the appeal in accordance with law preferably within three months after giving the opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)