Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 782 (PAT)

Ramnasib Singh v. State of Bihar

2024-08-21

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY

body2024
Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondent no.6. 2. The subject matter of the instant case are six plots appertaining to Khata no.474, Plot no.113 measuring an area of 0.14 decimal; Khata no.474, Plot no.1995 measuring an area of 0.94 decimal; Khata no.234, Plot no.2881 measuring an area of 0.95 decimal; Khata no.18 Plot no.2617 measuring an area of 0.11 decimal; Khata no.65 Plot no.2486 measuring an area of 0.15.5 decimal and Khata no.221 Plot no.2642 measuring an area of 0.03 decials, all in Mauza Govindpur Sadaweh under Police Station Dulhin Bazar in the District of Patna. 3. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he is the absolute owner of the above lands in question as a result of purchase of three of the plots by registered sale deed by his ancestors and the other three plots through deed of exchange obtained by his father, the sale deed and the deed of exchange having been brought on record as annexures to the writ application. 4. It is submitted that Jamabandi was created in the name of his father and he has been paying rent and getting rent receipt. Rent receipt for the year 1996-97 has been brought on record. 5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the lands in question were in peaceful possession of his ancestors since the year 1921 and of the writ petitioner since 1978. The private respondents (appellants herein) who do not have a good character dispossessed the writ petitioner from the land for which the writ petitioner filed a petition on 25.6.2023 before the Circle Officer and notices were issued. The parties were directed to produce relevant documents in support of their claim, however subsequently, the Circle Officer dropped the proceedings. Against the same, the writ petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Paliganj vide LD Case no.70 of 2022-23 wherein the writ respondents filed their written statement. The case was dropped by the learned DCLR with an advice to the writ petitioner to move before the competent Civil Court for the reason that complicated questions of title arose between the parties which can only be decided by the competent Civil Court. 6. The case was dropped by the learned DCLR with an advice to the writ petitioner to move before the competent Civil Court for the reason that complicated questions of title arose between the parties which can only be decided by the competent Civil Court. 6. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the learned DCLR has the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute but he dropped the proceeding and as such the order was bad in law. CWJC no.14667 of 2022 was filed praying for quashing the order dated 9.9.2022 passed in Land Dispute Case no. 70 of 2022-23 by the learned DCLR, Paliganj, Patna. The application was opposed by learned counsel for the writ respondent. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.11.2022 was pleased to dispose of CWJC no.14667 of 2022 against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 7. The learned counsel for the writ respondents-appellants has submitted that complicated questions of title arising in the instant application, the DCLR, Paliganj by his order dated 9.9.2022 rightly dropped the proceedings initiated under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to move in Title Suit. There was no illegality in the order of the learned DCLR. The writ respondents (appellants) were already in possession of the land and the order of the learned Single Judge giving a finding on the possession of the writ petitioner (respondent no.6) with respect to the land in question has caused serious prejudice to the appellant and thus the instant appeal. 8. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in deciding the question of possession in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matter should have been left to be decided in the title suit. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others [ (2019) 2 SCC 329 : 2019 (1) BLJ 183 (SC)]. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that the subject matter of the instant appeal are six plots of land described above situated in Mauza Govindpur Sadaweh under Police Station Dulhin Bazar in the District of Patna. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that the subject matter of the instant appeal are six plots of land described above situated in Mauza Govindpur Sadaweh under Police Station Dulhin Bazar in the District of Patna. The case of the writ petitioner is that his ancestors had purchased three plots vide registered sale deed dated 13.7.1921 while other three plots had been obtained by his father through a registered deed of exchange dated 9.11.1978. Jamabandi was created in the name of the writ petitioner's father and he was coming in peaceful possession of the land since the year 1921 or 1978 till his possession was disturbed by the private writ respondents with the assistance of the local police. 10. On the other land, the writ respondents seriously disputed the case of the writ petitioner. It was contended on their behalf that the landlord issued rent receipt in favour of the writ respondents and after vesting of Jamindari in the State, Khatiyan was prepared in the name of their agnates. They have been coming in peaceful possession of the land in question since the very beginning and it is for this reason that the writ petitioner had not produced any rent receipt etc for the period prior to 1996-1997. It is further their case that on some dispute arising in the families of the writ respondents, in resolution of the dispute, the writ petitioner was one of the panch and had also signed as a witness on the panchnama. 11. On perusal of the material on record it transpires that on an application having been filed by the writ petitioner under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009, Land Dispute Case no.70 of 2022-23 was registered. The DCLR, Paliganj by his order dated 9.9.2022, impugned in the writ application, went through the case of the respective parties in detail and came to the conclusion that as complicated questions of title were arising in the case, the matter was dropped/rejected with liberty to the parties to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for deciding the matter. The DCLR, Paliganj by his order dated 9.9.2022, impugned in the writ application, went through the case of the respective parties in detail and came to the conclusion that as complicated questions of title were arising in the case, the matter was dropped/rejected with liberty to the parties to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for deciding the matter. On the said order having been challenged by the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application with the observation and direction that if the writ respondent nos.6 to 9 (appellants herein) wanted to dispute the title of the writ petitioner, they can move the Civil Court by filing a title suit and they can also pray for any interim order but they will not disturb the possession of the writ petitioner without the sanction of the law. It was further ordered that they will not disturb even the writ petitioner or his family members in the peaceful enjoyment of his property. 12. At this stage it would be relevant to note the judgment in the case of Roshina T. (supra) relied upon on behalf of the writ respondent wherein this Court observed that the regular suit being the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between the private persons, the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not have entered into the questions of fact. The relevant paragraph nos. 14 to 17 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. B.D. Agarwal.) 15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court. 16. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant. 17. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible." 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the case under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act having been rejected by the order dated 9.9.2022 passed by the DCLR Paliganj, Patna with liberty to the parties to move in Title Suit and the same rightly not having been interfered by the learned Single Judge, in the opinion of the Court, the question of possession between the two private parties ie the writ petitioner and the writ respondent nos.6 to 9 should also have been left to be decided in the title suit itself. The findings and the directions by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in CWJC no.14667 of 2022 with respect to the possession of the parties including that the writ respondent nos. The findings and the directions by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in CWJC no.14667 of 2022 with respect to the possession of the parties including that the writ respondent nos. 6 to 9 will not disturb the possession of the writ petitioner is hereby set aside. The question of possession over the disputed land which is seriously contested between the writ petitioner (Respondent no.6 herein) and the writ respondents (Appellants herein) are also left open to be decided in the title suit. The directions and observations of the learned Single Judge with respect to filing of title suit and it's expeditious disposal stands affirmed. 14. The appeal stands partly allowed to the above extent. K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—I agree.