IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.632 of 2006 SHRI KANT JHA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners :Mr.Purushottam Jha,Advocate. For the State :Mr.G.A. For the private Rest.Mr.Ravi Shankar,Advocate. 4 10.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioners pray for directing the official respondents no.2 to 7 to provide full protect ion to their lives, liberty and properties as provided under section 323 (A) of the Constitution of India against the private respondents no.8 to 31. This Court vide order dated 12.3.2007 had issued notice to the private respondents. It would appear from office report that respondents no.8,10 to 15, 18 to 28 and 30 and 31 have already appeared through Vakalatnama. House service on respondent no.9 was affected. It further appears that respondent no.8 who is the father of respondent no.9 has already entered appearance. The case of the petitioners, in short, is as follows:- One Late Deo Narayan Jha was the original recorded land holder of about 100 acres of land of village-Basuki Vihar, District – Madhubani. In the year 1942 he sold all the lands to various persons, namely, Ram Sakal Singh, Ram Sevak Singh, Ram Swaroop Das, Ram Chandra Singh, Ram Swarath Singh and others. The petitioners and their ancestors purchased the land from the persons aforementioned. Their names were entered in Register No.2 2 and subsequently mutated in the State Sarista. Rent receipts were duly granted. The names of the petitioners were duly recorded in revisional survey prior 1070-71. Revisional Khatian were also prepared. During 1972 – 73 the land holders sold their respective land to a large number of a person including the petitioners and their ancestors. The land so sold are mentioned in Annexures – 3 and 8. Around 1975 some persons tried to grab the land of the petitioners. Respondents no.8 to 31 filed Bataidari cases against these petitioners under section 48 E of the B.T.Act, which were rejected by common order dated 6.8.1990, in B.T.Act Case No. 89 of 1971- 72 / 379 of 1985 – 86 by the D.C.L.R., Benipatti, and the appeals against the dismissal of the Bataidari case were also dismissed by the Collector, Madhubani vide his order dated 18.5.1992 in Appeal No.97 of 1990 and analogous cases. The private respondents no.8 to 31 preferred revision petition against the order dated 8.5.1992 passed by the Collector, Madhubani which too was dismissed by common order dated 28.9.1996. Some of the private respondents filed C.W.J.C. No.6180 of 1998 before this Court which was too dismissed as withdrawn on 6.7.1999. The private respondents even despite loosing Bataidari case up to this Court continued to create disturbance and they filed various applications for initiation of a proceeding under sections 144, 145 and 107 of the Cr.P.C., all of which were decided against them. In such circumstance, learned counsel submits that he is entitled for due protection for cultivating and harvesting land in 3 respect of which the opp. Parties – respondents have lost bataidari case as well as 144 and 145 proceeding. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Tushar vrs. The State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1996 PLJR 603 (D.B.) as well as in the case of Gauri Shankar and ors. vrrs. The State of Bihar & ors. 2001 PLJR 581. The learned counsel for the State has referred to paragraphs no.8 and 10 of its counter affidavit which are quoted hereinbelow:- 8. “That the averment made in para 5 of the writ petition is not correct under reply it is stated and submitted that the rent receipts and creation of Jamabandi is not the Proof of title and posse- ssion over the property. Creation of Jamabandi is only for the fiscal purpose.” 9. “That the averments made in para 10 of the writ petition, under reply it is stated and submit- ted that these facts is in the knowledge of the petitioners and onus is upon them to prove it, Deponent further submitted that the rent receipt is not proof of title and possession.It is monetory transaction between the land lord and tenant and Creation of Jamabandi is also not the proof of the title and possession. It is only for fiscal purpose.” 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that records of right, mutation have been duly prepared in the name of the petitioners. It also appears that the private respondents unsuccessfully fought the Bataidari case up to this Court. Various proceedings under sections 144 Cr.P.C. were initiated which were too decided against the private respondents and even proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated was also dropped. A person could be deprived of enjoyment of his property only in accordance with the provisions enshrined in law. In the instant case the petitioners have filed documents in respect of their claim of being owner of the property. So far as such claim is not up set by a court of civil jurisdiction, the petitioner has a right to enjoy usufruct of such property. In the back ground of this case this Court directs the official respondents to provide due protection to the petitioner in respect of the cultivation and harvesting of the crops. In case a representation is filed by the petitioner before respondents no.2 and 4 they will provide necessary protection in respect of harvesting so that they may peacefully cultivate and harvest their crops. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is allowed to the extent stated above. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)