Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 275 (PAT)

Abu Talib @ Abu Kalib v. State of Bihar

2022-04-01

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2022
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.—Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The case is being taken up from defect side. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove all the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order impugned Annexure-1 dated 23.11.2018 has been passed cancelling the land which was given by way of Bandobasti to the predecessors of the petitioners namely Saiyed Ali, Anisur Rahman, Mujibur Rahman and Habibur Rahman, son of Som Mohammad. All the four persons have expired. No notice was given to the petitioners. The order has been passed against that persons and on the basis of such an order, the order has been further passed on 08.12.2020 as placed on record by the other respondent as Annexure-B in their counter affidavit. Both the orders therefore deserve to be set aside, as they have been passed as against persons who had already died long back. The petitioners have not been given any hearing nor notice has been give to them. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Government land has been handed over to the petitioners’ forefathers and the Bandobasti conducted in 1966-67 is, therefore, cancelled. However, he is unable to defend the order on the ground raised by the petitioners that the same have been passed against dead person. 5. This Court is of firm view that no order can be passed against dead person. The present petitioners are in possession of the land and the minimum required was give them a notice and opportunity of hearing with regard to a land granted by way of Bandobasti to their forefather, way back in the years 1966-67 by way of Bandobasti. 6. The contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that the land was a Government land is also found to be without basis as there is no enquiry done after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. Keeping in view thereto, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned dated 23.11.2018 and any consequential orders including Annexure-B dated 08.12.2020 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue and maintain possession and use of the land given by way of Bandobasti in the year 1966-67. 8. 7. Keeping in view thereto, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned dated 23.11.2018 and any consequential orders including Annexure-B dated 08.12.2020 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue and maintain possession and use of the land given by way of Bandobasti in the year 1966-67. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.