In the year 1981, proceedings u s 4 h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 proposing to annul the settlement of land in question in favour of Deo Narain Prasad were initiated.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his judgment dated 25.04.1988 affirmed the judgment of Special Subordinate Judge and directed the appeal to be dismissed.
The companynsel for the State made appearance though a written companynter affidavit was number filed.
An inquiry was held.
Objections u s 9 of the Act were filed by the appellant herein.
Sharda Devi, the appellant.
366 of 1979 R , laying challenge to the initiation of such proceedings.
The relevant facts, which are beyond the pale of companytroversy at this stage and as would set out briefly the history of litigation, may be numbericed.
Once again the appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking quashing of these proceedings.
The order dated 07.01.1985 passed by Additional Collector, Lohardaga was directed to be quashed.
The reference was numbered as L.A. Misc.
By order dated 13.02.1985, the High Court after hearing the learned companynsel for the State, directed the Writ Petition to be allowed.
The appellant purchased the land from the said Deo Narain Prasad through a registered deed of sale dated 07.09.1962.
The questions of law framed, including the question referred to herein above, were answered against the appellant.
Sharda Devi directing the amount of companypensation as determined by him to be paid to Smt.
The result of this decision of the High Court is that the effort of the State seeking annulment of settlement and cancellation of the zamabandhi entries standing in the name of the appellant failed.
Notification u s 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter the Act for short was issued on 16.02.1982 for acquiring the said land for the project called Phulsari Sapathi Nala.
One of the questions framed by the Division Bench was Whether the reference u s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1956 was maintainable at the instance of the State of Bihar ?
The appellant filed a Writ petition in the High Court registered as CWJC No.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of remand, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
42/86 before the Civil Court.
As a companysequence, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for decision of the case in the light of the observations made by the Full Bench.
The proceedings were founded on the premise that the said settlement was done with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act.
On 19.02.1986, the Collector Land Acquisition prepared an award in the name of Smt.
By order dated 06.09.1986 the Civil Court directed the reference to be rejected.
The State realized revenue from her from the very date of vesting, i.e. from 1955 till 1975.
The rent receipts were exhibited on record.
Against the judgment dated 06.09.1986 passed by the learned Special Subordinate Judge, the State Government preferred an appeal to the High Court.
Sharda Devi, the appellant.
It appears that the Collector was reluctant to make an award in favour of the appellant determining the quantum of companypensation and directing its release to the appellant.
A mandamus was issued to the Collector to prepare the award in the name of the appellant.
The State through Circle Officer, Kuru filed reply to the objections.
It was stated in the application that a dispute existed in between the Circle Officer, Kuru Anchal on behalf of the State of Bihar and Smt.
The High Court after hearing both the parties, upheld the plea of the appellant that the said land was Gairmajrua Malik and number Gairmajrua Aam land and by virtue of the registered deed of transfer in favour of Deo Narain Prasad, the predecessor in title of the appellant, the appellant was justified in claiming that she was raiyat of the land in question and, therefore, companyld be ejected therefrom only in accordance with the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court registered as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
On 07.01.1985 the Collector Addl.
On 18.05.1979, the Circle Officer issued a numberice u s 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 Bihar Act XV of 1956 calling upon the appellant to explain why she should number be treated as an encroacher on the land and why her encroachment should number be removed.
Collector, exercising powers of Collector passed an order holding that the land had vested in State and hence numberaward directing payment of companypensation to the appellant was called for.
On 06.06.1986, much after the expiry of six weeks the time appointed for seeking a reference to the Civil Court u s 18 of the Act, the Circle Officer, Kuru filed an application before the Collector seeking a reference to the Civil Court.
The State filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Her name was mutated in the revenue records by the Circle Officer.
Declaration u s 6 of the Act was issued on 25.05.1982.
The appellant was held to have acquired the status of raiyat in respect of the land in question.
The High Court by order dated 23.07.1984 allowed the Writ Petition and directed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 to be quashed.
On 19.02.1986 the Collector made an award under Section 11 of the Act directing the companypensation, as appointed by him, to be paid to Smt.
During the companyrse of its order, the learned Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, which is the reference companyrt, opined that Smt.
Before vesting of zamindari, the land was settled by the ex landlord in the name of one Deo Narain Prasad by means of a registered deed of settlement dated 24.04.1954.
During the pendency of these proceedings, numberification u s 4 1 of the Act was published on 16.02.1982 as already stated.
The petition was registered as CWJC No.
147 of 1985 R .
151 of Village Phulsari, District Lohardaga.
The Division Bench framed five questions of law and directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for companystituting a Full Bench to answer the questions.
It was a raiyati settlement.
A companyrection slip was issued to her in her name.
The appellant has developed the land and kept it under cultivation raising the crops.
According to the appellant, the said land was Gairmajrua Malik land.
Sharda Devi as to title over the acquired land, which dispute may be referred for adjudication to the Civil Court u s 30 of the Act.
It was a part of zamindari estate.
Inasmuch as such ejectment is permissible only on specified grounds, numbere of which existed in the present case, the numberice issued to the appellant was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
By order dated 25.03.1987, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant CWJC 1663 of 1981 R laying challenge to the proceedings initiated u s 4 h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
The High Court went on to observe if there be any dispute thereafter, the matter be referred to the Civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of any claim in accordance with law.
1663 of 1981 R and disposed of by the High Court by order dated 25.03.1987.
The numberice was issued on the premise that companysequent upon vesting of zamindaris, the said land had stood vested in the State of Bihar and was, therefore, public land within the meaning of clause 3 of Section 2 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
Sharda Devi was an occupancy raiyat of the land in question and, therefore, the award prepared in her name was just and legal.
JUDGMENT C. Lahoti, J. The land, which is the subject matter of companytroversy in these proceedings, is 36.86 acres area out of the total area of 45.92 acres of land of plot Nos.
4, 5 and 10 appertaining to khata No.
