Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Md.Rahmat Ali, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.

Md.Rahmat Ali, and anr. vs State of Bihar, and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Oct 28, 2010
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916291

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4534 OF 1995
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Markandey Katju ; Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.] - Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) 1908 - Section 151 - Saving of inherent powers of Court -- This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Civil revision No. 945 of 2002. While t...

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Bihar Land Reforms Act - Section 4(a)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Md.Rahmat Ali, and anr.

Advocate Mr. Yogendra Mishra; Mr. U.K. Choudhary, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar, and ors.

Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Bihar Land Reforms Act - Section 4(a)

Excerpt

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored......is stated that the petitioners' father submitted return and his name was recorded by the state in register ii. the petitioners claim that they have been granted rent receipts by the state of bihar right up till 1994. on the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is argued that they, the petitioners, will be entitled to retain the possession of the tank in question by virtue of the provisions of section 4(a) of the bihar land reforms act which reads as follows:"4(a) such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of building comprised in such estate or tenure and primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure and his interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazaars, [mela] and ferries and all other sairati interests, as also his interest in all sub-soil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered or whether been worked or not inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under raiyats) shall with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the state free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interests in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this act."3. the petitioners' claim that raiyats rights over a particular piece of land be it a sairat, jalkar or hat would not vest in the state of bihar.4. a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state wherein it is stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the tank, that only two rent receipts have been granted in their favour, and that the petitioners' father's name is not entered in register ii. therefore, the state supports the order contained in annexure-7 by stating that all lands especially those appertaining to jalkars, hats, bazar, sairat vest in the state of bihar and the.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, contained in Annexure-7 by which lands appertaining to Khata No. 490, Plot No. 1486 (old), R.S. Plot No. 1973, measuing 1 Bigha, 10 Kathas and 9 Dhurs which is a Pokhar, has been transferred to the Fisheries Department for recording it as a Sairat. The said transfer was made on the basis of a report of the Circle Officer.

2. The petitioners' case is that 15 Kathas and 4 Dhurs of the lands mentioned aforesaid were settled on 7.8.1943 to the petitioners' father Md. Ali. Rent receipts were granted by the ex-landlord in favour of the petitioners' father. One such receipt has been annexed and marked as Annexure-2/1. It is also stated that on 18.4.1993, the remaining 15 Kathas and 4 Dhurs was also settled in favour of the petitioners' father. It is stated that the petitioners' father submitted return and his name was recorded by the State in Register II. The petitioners claim that they have been granted rent receipts by the State of Bihar right up till 1994. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is argued that they, the petitioners, will be entitled to retain the possession of the tank in question by virtue of the provisions of Section 4(a) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act which reads as follows:

"4(a) Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of building comprised in such estate or tenure and primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure and his interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazaars, [mela] and ferries and all other sairati interests, as also his interest in all sub-soil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered or whether been worked or not inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under raiyats) shall with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interests in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act."

3. The petitioners' claim that raiyats rights over a particular piece of land be it a Sairat, Jalkar or Hat would not vest in the state of Bihar.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the tank, that only two rent receipts have been granted in their favour, and that the petitioners' father's name is not entered in Register II. Therefore, the State supports the order contained in Annexure-7 by stating that all lands especially those appertaining to Jalkars, Hats, Bazar, Sairat vest in the State of Bihar and the petitioners would not be entitled to retain those lands by virtue of the said settlement.

5. The documents in support of the petitioners' case have not been produced in Court and the State in fact has not passed any order or examined the case of the petitioners vis a vis his pleadings. In fact, petitioners have not approached the appropriate authority for the purposes of getting a declaration that the lands in question are in their possession and the name of their father has been recorded in the revenue records.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the appropriate authority within a period of two months on receipt of a copy of this order. The appropriate authority i.e. the D.C.L.R., Jhanjharpur should examine the matter after calling for the records and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible. The question of possession should be determined by the D.C.L.R., Jhanjharpur by conducting a spot enquiry, and after taking and recording the evidence of the villagers in presence of the petitioners, which should be duly signed by the party concerned.

7. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial