Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 475 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-03

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. The present writ application is directed against the order dated 04.07.2006 passed by the LRDC, Barh in Case No. 3 of 2006. 2. The petitioners case is that he is in possession of substantial agricultural land and is duly recorded as a raiyat in respect thereof. For quite sometime, he had been requesting the authorities to demarcate the land so that there is no problem with regard to possession thereof especially at the time of sowing and harvesting crops. The learned LRDC forwarded this application to the Circle Officer. Some reports were received. Thereafter, the private respondents No. 5 and 6 filed an objection before the learned LRDC praying that no steps be taken pursuant to application of the petitioner as petitioner was wrongly claiming possession over these respondents lands. They referred to the report of Halka Karamchari to show that it were private respondents who were found in possession. After hearing both the sides, by the impugned order, the learned LRDC held that there were serious disputes as between the parties with regard to possession of land. Instead of holding that in such a situation, possession of either party could not be decided by him and consequently no measurement could properly be done to demarcate the land, he went a step further and held that the petitioner was not in possession. It is this part of the order by which the petitioner is aggrieved. The private respondents were noticed and had appeared. The State has filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. In the supplementary counter affidavit, they have stated that the Subdivisional Officer, without knowledge of the order of the DCLR, as impugned herein, acting in bona fide, directed that protection be given to the petitioner but or coming to know that DCLR had passed an order adverse to the petitioner, he had recalled that order. In the said supplementary counter affidavit, it is also manifest that the authorities are cognizant of the fact that there is serious dispute with regard to said land. 3. Heard the parties, and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. In view of the averments as made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit and the various reports, it is clear that there is serious dispute with regard to possession of agricultural land. 3. Heard the parties, and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. In view of the averments as made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit and the various reports, it is clear that there is serious dispute with regard to possession of agricultural land. Petitioner and private respondents No. 5 and 6 both claim possession. In view of the dispute, the land cannot be demarcated till the dispute is resolved. In such an event, the petitioner is right in his submission that the learned DCLR should have refrained from passing any order or giving a finding with regard to possession. The prayer before him was only to demarcate the land. Having found dispute with regard to possession, he should have refrained from passing any order for demarcation till the dispute is resolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction rather than giving a finding himself to the effect that the petitioner was not in possession. To that extent, the writ application must succeed and the order impugned to that extent is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 5. However, considering the nature of dispute and its recurring nature, I direct the Subdivisional Magistrate, Barh to take appropriate action in this regard to resolve the dispute with regard to possession so that law and order may be maintained and immediate action in this regard is required lest there be bloodshed. I order accordingly. The parties would be at liberty if they so like and if they are so advised to take their respective stands before the Subdivisional Magistrate in the proceedings to be initiated and/or move appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication as regard possession and/or title over the disputed land. 6. With these observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.