IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.271 of 2006 1. SHIVYUKTA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE BALDEO CHOUDHARY. 2. MAHENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM KRIPAL CHOUDHARY. 3. AWADHESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE KEDAR NATH CHOUDHARY. 4. RAM SAGAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF BISHWANATH CHOUDHARY. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- FATEHA, ANCHAL & P.S.- BACHWARA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI :---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEGHRA, BEGUSARAI. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-CIRCLE OFFICER, BACHHWARA, BEGUSARAI. 6. ARBIND KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM SEWAK CHOUDHARY @ BHUTTU CHOUDHARY, MUKHIYA FATEHA GRAM PANCHAYAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FATEHA, P.S.- BACHHWARA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 7. ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, BLOCK AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, BACHHWARA, BEGUSARAI, SON OF (NOT KNOWN TO US), AGENT OF THE SARVAGIN VIKASH YOJNA IN FATEHA GRAM PANCHAYAT :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Debanjan Chowdhary, A.C. to A.A.G.-13. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. S.N.Choudhary, Advocate. ====== 7. 17.01.2011. Re: I.A.No.1128 of 2008 During the pendency of this writ petition Petitioner No.1, Shivyukta Choudhary left for his heavenly abode on 24.11.2007 leaving behind heirs and legal representatives as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application. 2. Let the name of Petitioner No.1, Shivyukta Choudhary, be deleted from the array of parties and in his place heirs and legal representatives, indicated in Paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application, be substituted. 3. I.A.No. 1128 of 2008 is, accordingly, disposed - 2 - of. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the counsel for Respondent Nos. 6, and 7, the then Mukhiya, Fateha Gram Panchayat and the Block Agriculture Officer, Bachhwara, Begusarai, who have been impleaded by name alleging mala fide against them. 5. Petitioners are the raiyat of 20 bighas of land bearing Plot No. 4585 to 4610 appertaining to Khata Nos. 521, 532, 539, 540, 558, 562, 563, 565, 569 and 571 of Village- Sondhahuar @ Fateha within Bachhwara Block of Begusarai district. In support of the assertion that petitioners are the raiyat of the aforesaid land, copy of the khatiyan, Annexure-10 is annexed with the writ petition. 6. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6,7, however, states that the khatiyan, Annexure-10 does not include all the plots which have been referred to above. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that notwithstanding the entries in the khatiyan Respondent Nos. 6,7 directed for digging of Plot Nos. 4589, 4594, 4600, 4603 as nature of those lands is recorded in the khatiyan as Garha (ditch) by stating that those plot(s) are part of Ganga Sagar Pond which is a sairat of the State and for providing better fishing amenities in the said pond the aforesaid four plots are required to be dug by the State Agency. Petitioners objected to the aforesaid digging of the four plot on the ground that the same may be indicated in the khatiyan as a Garha/ditch but is not the part of Ganga Sagar Pond and in course of time has come - 3 - up to the level of the adjoining upper land of the petitioners and is under their cultivation. It is also submitted that the lands-in-question may be a ditch but as it is recorded in the khatiyan in the name of the petitioners, the State authorities including Respondent Nos. 6,7 had no authority to undertake digging over the same as those lands never vested in the State. It is further submitted that appreciating the aforesaid submission under orders dated 18.01.2006 interim order was passed directing the authorities to maintain status quo over the lands-in- question. 7. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6,7 on the other hand submitted that upper lands which is not the part of Garha/ditch (Ganga Sagar Pond) are the raiyati land of the petitioners but lands of Plot Nos. 4589, 4594, 4600, and 4603 has all along been part of Ganga Sagar pond and has been settled throughout by the State authorities for fishing purposes by the fishermen. In support of the aforesaid statement counsel for Respondent Nos. 6,7, however, has not produced any document. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to rely on the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit. With the counter affidavit Respondent Nos. 6,7 have annexed provisional parwana authorizing Ram Balak Sahni, Secretary of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Bachhwara to undertake fishing over the lands of Plot Nos. 4580, 4594, 4586, 4600, 4589, 4603, 4590, 4620. - 4 - Out of the aforesaid plots petitioners are claiming title over Plot Nos. 4594, 4600, 4603 and 4590 on the basis of the entries in the khatiyan, which is Annexure-10 series. The provisional parwana was issued for the year 2004-05, till 2006-07 which could not be acted upon in view of the interim order dated 18.01.2006 passed in the instant case. For the present there is no parwana issued for fishing purposes over the aforesaid lands, as such, prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous, which is disposed of. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to observe that the entries in the khatiyan have a presumptive value in favour of the person in whose name the lands are recorded in the khatiyan in view of the provisions contained in Section 103 B of the Bihar Tenancy Act and as the lands of Plot Nos. 4594, 5486, 4600, 4589, 4603, 4590 are recorded in the khatiyan in the name of the petitioners who have also produced the other contemporaneous documents like Form-M(Rent Roll under the Bihar Land Reforms Act) and rent receipts in support of the assertion that the aforesaid lands are raiyati lands of the petitioners it is observed that the State authorities should be well advised not to direct their agents to go over the lands of Plot Nos. 4594, 5486, 4600, 4589, 4603, 4590 which according to the State authorities are part of the Ganga Sagar Pond until the entries in the khatiyan made in favour of the petitioners is overruled by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. So far other plots bearing Nos. 4580 and 4620 which is also - 5 - part of the Ganga Sagar Pond as per the provisional parwana the State authorities are at liberty to go over the same as no document indicating that the same is recorded as the raiyati land of any other tenant has been produced before this Court. In the event similar parwana like the one dated 20.07.2005, Annexure-A is again issued by the State authorities the petitioners would be well advised to move the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for maintaining status quo over the lands-in-question until adjudication of their title over the lands-in-question. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)