PATNA, India, April 23 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on March 23:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:-

"i. The order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Addl. Collector in jamabandi Raddikaran Vad Sankhya 30 of 2020 may kindly be set aside.

ii. It may kindly be held as the settlement by Ex- Land Lord was made much before 1.1.1946 and in return the name of the father of the petitioner was mentioned and the petitioner paid rent and obtained rent receipt from Ex-Land Lord before abolition of Zamindari and thereafter to the State so the petitioner is raiyat as per instruction issued by Rajyapal in this connection.

iii. It may kindly be also held that under the facts and circumstances stated above State Officials have no power to start jamabandi cancellation case.

iv. The present jamabandi Raddikaran case has been started at the instance of local Anchaladhikari who has not got such power

V. Law is well settled that in a case where Raiyat is found in possession for long then proceeding u/s 4 (h) is without jurisdiction.

vi. Award amount may kindly paid to the petitioner.

vii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court finds fit and reasonable may also be awarded to the petitioners and award amount should also be paid to the petitioner with due interest."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the fact that by the impugned order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Additional Collector, his longstanding Jamabandi has been cancelled. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner had purchased the land through registered sale on 4.5.1938 from the duly settled Raiyat by exlandlord and since then, father of the petitioner is in continuous possession over the said land and after his death the petitioner has been coming in possession of the same till date. It has further been submitted that prior to abolition of zamindari, rent was being paid to the ex-landlord and upon abolition the rent was being paid to the State of Bihar till date and there had been no claim from any corner.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said proposal by the local Circle Officer is against the instructions given by the Governor of Bihar. He further submits that as the ex-landlord made settlement to a tenant and the tenant came in possession of the same, the land become raiyati land of the tenant and the State cannot claim over such land. It has been asserted that in the present case, after settlement, the tenant sold the land to the father of the petitioner who is in possession till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Annexure4 series, has claimed that, considering the genuine and bona fide claim of the petitioner, the state authority was pleased to prepare the award in the name of the petitioner as the land was being acquired for an approach road.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTk1MCMyMDIxIzEjTg==-skiOq9LURXA=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.