IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9558 of 2010 1. SHAMBHU PRASAD, SON OF LATE JAGDISH LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HATHIYAR, PS. BODH GAYA, GAYA 2. RAJ KISHORE PRASAD, SON OF LATE KAPILDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MACHARIN, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA 3. DEONANDAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE CHEDI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MACHARIN, P.S. BODH GAYA, GAYA 4. ARJUN PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.S. BODH GAYA, GAYA 5. KISHORI LAL, SON OF LATE BANKE BIHARI LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KACHARANPUR, P.S. BARACHATTI, DISTRICT GAYA. 6. BAGESHWARI PRASAD, SON OF LATE DAROGA LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDCHAURA P.S. CIVIL LINES DISTRICT GAYA. 7. MOST. KUNTI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHISHIR SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BRAHMAN GHAT, P.S. CIVIL LINES DISTRICT GAYA 8. ARBIND KUMAR SON OF LATE CHITRAGUPTA LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHOSI, P.S. AND DISTRICT JEHANABAD AND PRESNETLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA BAGESHWARI P.S. KOTWALI DISTRICT GAYA 9. KUMAR AJIT SHARAN SON OF LATE BANWARI SHARAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURAJPUR P.S. BODH GAYA DISTRICT GAYA 10. RAMASHISH SINGH SON OF LATE BEYADER SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUBHAL P.S. CHANDAULI DISTRCIT GAYA 11. BABAN PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE KULDEEP NARAYAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAGMAGARH P.S. MUFFASSIL, GAYA. …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, GAYA 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, BODH GAYA, DISRTRICT GAYA …RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate & :Mr. Sidhhartha Prasad For the State :Mr. Y.P.Sinha,AAG 15 :Mr.R.K. Ambastha JC to AG 15 ----------- 08. 10.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 08.07.2009, passed by respondent-Collector, Gaya in Case No.03/07-8 (State vs. Shambhu Prasad & Ors.). Aforesaid order seems to have 2 been passed by the said respondent in compliance of the order dated 13.02.2007, passed in CWJC No. 7777 of 2005 as contained in annexure-10 to the writ petition. Petitioners claim parts of the land appertaining to Khata No.850, Khesra No.4340 measuring total area of 6.20 acres. It is the case of the petitioners that they acquired the aforesaid land by way of settlement from ex landlord before vesting of Zamindari. It is also their case that the returns in respect of the lands in question were filed by the ex landlord in the name of the petitioners. Since during revisional survey names of some other persons stood recorded in respect of subject land, a case being Case No.4082 of 1981 under section 106 of the B.T. Act was filed. Said matter was disposed of by a judgment and decree dated 20.06.1991/27.06.1992. By order dated 17.05.2005, the Collector on the basis of some ex- parte orders, directed for cancellation of Jamabandi which led to filing of aforesaid CWJC No. 7777 of 2007. After hearing both sides, this Court by a proceeding dated 13.02.2007 (Annexure- 10), disposed of the writ application in the following manner: “In the present case admittedly and undisputedly, though the matter was serious and involved serious dispute, the petitioners were never formally noticed or even otherwise called upon to defend themselves. To my mind, this is enough to vitiate both Annexure 6, the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate and Annexures 7 and 8 passed by the D.C.L.R. in pursuant thereto. The consequence is, both the aforesaid orders are set aside in violation of basic principle of natural justice with a direction to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate to initiate an enquiry into the matter after due notice to the petitioners and disclosing to the petitioners 3 all materials that he wishes to rely on as against the petitioners and giving petitioners a chance to rebut the same. Such an enquiry has to be in open court and should be concluded within a period of six months unbiased or unprejudiced by any earlier finding in this regard recorded by the Collector himself. Needless also to point out that if the petitioners seek any government record, which they are unable to get in terms of their rights under Right to Information Act then the Collector would be obliged to produce the same. Needless also to say that if the Collector relies on statement of any person and/or report of any person the petitioners shall have a right to examine those persons. It is only in compliance of these aspect of the matters, the enquiry would serve a useful purpose as the allegation of the State is apparently very serious in nature that entire court proceeding records have been forged and fabricated. Till such time the matter is finally decided by the Collector, parties will maintain status quo in all respects.” After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and allowing them to file their respective claims/documents, respondent-Collector on a consideration of materials available on record, has found that the documents of title on which the petitioners were placing reliance were forged and fabricated documents and obtained by collusion. Respondent-Collector has assigned more than adequate reasons therefor. It is difficult for this Court to go into those findings of facts based on appraisal of cases of the parties. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4. Paragraph 19 of the said counter affidavit reads as under: “That with regard to the statements made in para no.22 of the writ petition that this para is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. As 4 already submitted above that land mafiya has succeeded in getting fraudulent Judgement and Decree on the basis of forged and fabricated Hukumnama-Zamindari rent receipts and Return which has already been ignored by the competent authority. It is pertinent to note that this Judgement and Decree has already been challenged by the General Public in a regular title suit as fraudulent decree vide Title Suit No.53/2004 pending before Munsif-II court Gaya in which the State of Bihar is also a party.” It thus appears that a suit being Title Suit No.53/04 is already pending in respect of the land in question in which the State of Bihar as well as the writ petitioners herein are parties. In that view of the matter also this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Needless to observe that the result of the suit will decide the respective rights of the parties. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach the said court for interim relief, if any. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )