PATNA, India, May 21 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on April 20:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for directing the respondent authorities to remove the respondent second party from the raiyati and homestead lands of the petitioner which has been forcefully encroached upon by them.

3. The fact giving rise to the present writ application is to the effect that the present petitioner purchased the raiyat land in the name of his wife (now deceased), Kumari Bindu Arun @ Smt. Anju Arun, through registered sale deed dated 27.06.1991 from one Gopi Nath Chaudhary and Another and subsequently from one Satya Narayan Prasad vide Reg. Sale deed dated 26.11.2019 and came in possession over the same after the aforesaid purchase and with respect to the aforesaid purchase the Jamabandi was opened in the name of the wife of the petitioner. Consequently, rent receipts are also being issued relating to the land in question.

4. In the year 2011-12, the land bearing Khata No.147/324, Plot No.1583/3732, for area measuring 02 kh. 15 dhur, a proceeding was initiated at the behest of the vendor of the petitioner namely Satay Narayan Prasad before the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Benipatti vide BLDR Case No. 91 of 2011-12, consequently, by order dated 07.12.2011 the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Benipatti, after hearing the parties was pleased to direct the learned Circle Officer to get the land of the petitioner vacated from Bechan Mukhiya and others, who were found to be the encroachers.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Benipatti, vendor of the petitioner Satay Narayan Prasad has challenged the order before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, in which it was directed to both the parties to approach the learned Civil Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Benipatti, whereby direction was issued to him to get the land vacated. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was shocked when he came to know that the respondent second party and their legal heirs tried to claim for Basgit Parcha over 08 decimal lands of the petitioner pertaining to Plot no. 3733, which has continuously been in possession of the petitioner since several decades. The petitioner has come to know that respondent second party and their legal heirs have even applied for Basgit Parcha on the said Plot No.1583/3733 measuring 8 decimal belonging to the petitioner, before the learned Circle Officer, though their claim has been rejected long ago by the then learned Circle Officer in the year 2003.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTY2NTIjMjAyMiMxI04=-05dzJSUkkQ8=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.