Jiwach Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar — 1993 DIGILAW 245 (PAT)

JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. This application is directed against an order dated 27.8.1992 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application whereby he has dismissed revision Case No. 30 of 1992 at the stage of admission as also against an order dated 11.11.1992 passed by the Collector, Khagaria, (respondent No.3) in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1990-1991 as contained in Annexure-2 and the order dated 26.12.1989 passed by the Additional Collector Khagaria, (respondent No.4) in Land Ceiling Case No. 39 of 1981-82 as contained in Annexure-1 thereto rejecting the claim of the petitioner under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (herein-after referred to as the said Act). 2. According to the petitioner his ancestors took settlement of 25.23 acres land from Bakhtiyarpur State. However neither the deed of settlement nor any other document evidencing the settlement had been filed with the writ petition. Even the year in which such settlement was taken, has not been mentioned in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner has submitted that Jagtarni Devi was not related to him but despite the same in paragraph 10 of the writ application it has been stated as follows : "That Shri Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Husband of Jagtarni Devi was the most trusted friend of the petitioner and hence it was considered to be very safe to acquire or purchase land in name of the wife of Shri Nageshwar Prasad Singh." 4. It appears that an application for mutation was filed by the petitioner in the year 1971. The said lands however, were included in Schedule of surplus land of Respondent No.5 by an order dated 26.12.1989. 5. An appeal appears, to have been preferred by respondent No.5 although in the writ application it has been mentioned that the petitioner preferred an appeal. 6. By an order dated 11.1.1992 it has been held by the Collector of the District that the lands in question, had all along been entered in the revenue records in the name of Jagtarni Devi mother of the respondent No.5. It was held that' it could not be ascertained as to how that the lands in question were mutated in the name of the petitioner. 7. The appellate court therefore, dismissed the appeal on that ground. It was held that' it could not be ascertained as to how that the lands in question were mutated in the name of the petitioner. 7. The appellate court therefore, dismissed the appeal on that ground. As noticed hereinbefore, the revision application filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 8. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherewith he has, annexed copies of the application tiled by him before the Additional Collector purported to be under Section 10 (3) of the Act, which is contained in Annexure-5 thereto. 9. The rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the petitioner has also been annexed with the said supplementary affidavit. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the lands in question stand mutated in the name of the petitioner and the rent receipts are being granted in his name, the concerned respondents must be held to have acted illegally, in passing the impugned order. 11. Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, the learned Standing Counsel however has produced the records of the case and submitted that the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records only after 9.9.1970 and thus the question of entertaining any objection under Section 10(3) of the said Act at the instance of the petitioner did" not arise. 12. From the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, it is evident that upto 1972 the lands in question were recorded in the revenue records in the name of Jagtarni Devi, mother of the landholder. Her name was also recorded in Register No. II. Only in 1972 the lands in questions were mutated in the name of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner does not claim that the lands in question was taken settlement of by his predecessor-in-interest. Neither any document has been annexed nor, as indicated hereinbefore, even the year in which such settlement was taken was mentioned. As noticed hereinbefore, in paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has clearly been stated that the husband of Jagtarni Devi meaning thereby the father of the landholder was his benamidar. 14. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner claims his right, title and interest only on the basis of a benami transaction. As noticed hereinbefore, in paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has clearly been stated that the husband of Jagtarni Devi meaning thereby the father of the landholder was his benamidar. 14. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner claims his right, title and interest only on the basis of a benami transaction. Without going into the question as to whether such a transaction shall be hit by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, it must be held that even for such a purpose, the petitioner was required to prove the ingredients of benami. 5. By reason of an order of mutation which took place after 9.9.1970 the petitioner cannot claim any independent right, title and interest in the property in question. 16. It is now well known that payment of rent docs not create any title. It was thus obligatory on the part of the petitioner to prove his independent title. 17. From the order sheet dated 27.4.1977 passed by the' Sub-divisional Officer in a proceeding under Section 5(1) (iii) of the Act' it appears that some lands have been shown to be the farzi lands by the mother of the landholder. No objection was filed by the mother of the landholder. No claim in relation to the lands involved in the said ease was also advanced. 18. Even at that point of time although transfers made by the landholder and/or his mother had been questioned, the petitioner did not raise any claim. 19. The petitioner, appears to have tiled an objection under Section 10 (3) of the Act on 25th August, 1989' before the Additional Collector, Khagaria. Even at that stage he did not file an objection under Section 37 of the said Act. Before the Additional Collector, also as it appears from the record, no document whatsoever was tiled by the petitioner. 20. In this situation, in our opinion, and for the reasons aforementioned, it is not a fit ease in which any interference with the impugned order is called for. 21. This application is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. OM Prakash, J. I agree.