S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. Thepetitioner has challenged the Eviction Case No. 91 of 1997 initiated against him under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on the ground that the summary proceeding is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The dispute relates to land measuring 0.2.7 decimals out of 3 acres 68 decimals of Khata No. 23, Khewat No. 2 in Mouza-Pandedih.
3. The case of petitioner is that the land in question is his raiyati land. Before the Cadestral Survey Settlement (C.S. Settlement), the recorded Khewat-holder, Chandrakant Ganguli executed a registered deed of Mokarari Lease Agreement on 14th August, 1906 in respect to some lands of Khewat No. 2 in favour of M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited. In C.S. record of rights was published in the year 1925. M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited was shown as tenant in respect of Khata No. 23 under the landlord-Chandrakant Ganguli and others of Khewat No. 2. The aforesaid M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited surrendered thesaid leasehold lands of Khata No. 23 to the lessors in the year 1940 whereinafter the heirs and successors of the recorded Khewat-holder by a registered sale deed dated 20.1.1949 made permanent raiyati settlement of some part of lands of Khata No. 23 measuring about 3 acres 68 decimals in favour of one Sri Bhim Mahato. The said Sri Bhim Mahato sold and transferred the aforesaid part of lands in favour of Smt. Patua Mahatain on 24th March,1954. whereinafter the said Smt. Patua Mahatain sold the said land to one Dhrub Raj, a close relative of petitioner. In the year1955, petitioner formed a Company known as 'Inchex Co. (P) Limited', constructed a factory on the portion of the land for manufacture of Gun Powder Explosive, having obtained Explosive Licence No. B (1)/458 granted by Government of India after due enquiry.
The tenure rights was abolished in the year 1956 as per Bihar Land Reforms Act whereinafter the State of Bihar became the direct landlord of Khewat No. 2 in place of the recorded Khewat holders. On vesting, the ex-Khewat holders submitted zamindari return of Khewat No. 2 to the State of Bihar. In the State Government revenue records prepared after 1956, M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited was not recorded as tenant. Mutation order was passed in favour of Inchex Company (P) Limited and receipts were granted in its favour.
4. The case of respondents is that the writ petition is premature and petitioner may file and pursue objection before the authority. Further case of respondents, M/s. BCCL is that in the C.S. Khatian, records of right prepared in the year 1925 it is recorded to be owned by M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited. The lands vested with respondent No. 1, Company - M/s. BCCL on the enactment of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act 1972. The landed property in question has been vested absolutely and free from all encumbrance in favour of respondent No. 1, Company as per extended definition of 'Mines' as defined in the relevant Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Madan Lal Agrawal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 177.
5. From the pleading made by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents, it appears that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr PC started vide M.P. Case No. 1881 A/85 between M/s. BCCL and petitioner which was decided in favour of petitioner on 20th December, 1986 vide Annexure-2. No appeal/revision was preferred by respondent-M/s. BCCL. During revisional survey, the land in question has been recorded in favour of petitioner. In this background, a case under Section 83 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (C.T. Act) was filed by M/s. BCCL against the petitioner, registered as Objection Case No. 90. In the said case, by order dated 24th April, 1989 (Annexure-3) the authority rejected the claim of respondent M/s. BCCL and held that the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 had no effect in respect to the land in question, the right and ownership of M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited having extinguished much earlier. The prayer of M/s. BCCL to enter its name showing ownership with possession was rejected against which no appeal, revision or review was preferred by respondents.
It appears that the respondent-M/s. BCCL has already preferred a suit No. 3675 of 2000 under Section 87 of C-NT Act. In the said suit, while M/s. BCCL is the plaintiff, petitioner, Madan Mohan Vadehra has been made sole defendant. In the Schedule, the land in question has been shown and following prayer made at Para 15 of the plaint:
'15. That the plaintiff, therefore prays decree for the following reliefs :
(a) For a decree or order for correction of records of rights in respect of schedule A land of the plaint on declaration of plaintiffs title thereto and confirmation of his possession thereon.
(b) For a decree of cost of the suit.
(c) For a decree for any other or further relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled to.'
6. From the facts aforesaid, it will be evident that there is a dispute relating to right and title and the respondent M/s. BCCL has already filed a suit for correction of record, declaration of title and confirmation of possession with respect to the land in question. Thus there is a disputed question of right and title.
The question raised by the respondents as to whether the title to the property came to be vested with the respondents as a result of Coal Mines Nationalisation Act or not is itself a question of fact.
It is a settled law that where a complicated questions of title arise for decision, the summary proceeding for eviction cannot be resorted. In this respect, one may refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. T. Krishna Rao, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1081.
7. In the facts and circumstance in the present case, there being disputed question of title, respondents/authority concerned are directed not to proceed with Eviction Case No. 91 of 1997, till the question of right and title is decided by the competent Court of law/in Suit No. 3675 of 2000 already preferred by respondents, as referred above.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid, observations/directions.