AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
This Appeal arises out of the proceedings where initially relief of decree for specific performance of the Agreement dated 26.11.1968 was sought by the appellants. Subsequently by way of an amendment, relief in the nature of declaration that the appellants were entitled to occupancy rights (Raiyati Rights) in respect of the land in question was also prayed for. The suit was decreed by the trial court insofar as the relief as regards occupancy rights was concerned but no relief of the decree for specific performance was granted. The appeal arising therefrom was dismissed and the matter reached by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 397 of 1983 at the instance of the present respondents.
The High Court allowed said Second Appeal on second substantial question of law, the discussion with regard to which was as under:
"So far the second substantial question of law is concerned, Section 52A (2) of the Bihar Tenancy Act provides that "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in any other law or in any contact, the right, title and interest of the raiyat shall subsist in such land or portion during the period of loss by diluvion and the raiyat shall have the right to immediate possession on the reformation of such land or portion on its old site." Admittedly, the present case, the suit lands were subjected to aluvion and diluvion. The trial court at paragraph 25 has disbelieved the story of the plaintiffs regarding Sikmi settlement before the survey or at the time of survey operation. At paragraph 30, the trial court recorded a finding that the disputed lands came out of the water of river ganges a few years prior to the institution of the suit. In spite of the said Patna High Court SA No. 397 of 1983 dated 6.2.2013 finding, the trial court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the declaration sought for in respect of their Sikmi right and the said finding has been upheld by the Appellate Court. It may be mentioned here that none of the courts below have examined the provision of Section 52A of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Therefore, this substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the appellants."
Concluding that the relief of declaration that the appellants were entitled to occupancy rights (Raiyati Rights) could not be granted by the civil courts and the exclusive jurisdiction with regard to such questions was with the Revenue Authorities, the appeal was allowed by the High Court.
We have heard learned counsel for both sides. In our view, the conclusions drawn by the High Court are quiet correct and do not call for any interference by this Court. We see no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the matter could be gone into by the Civil Court. We therefore see no merit in the Appeal.
However, considering the fact that the litigation has been going on for more than four decades, we allow the appellants to file an appropriate application under the provisions of Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. If such application is filed within one month from today, the concerned Revenue Authority shall dispose of the application as early as possible and preferably within three months from the lodging/filing of the application.
If the application is filed with a month's time, the relationship between the parties and their status as regards the land in question, shall be governed by such orders as the Authority may deem appropriate to pass. In order to facilitate exercise of such power, we direct the parties to maintain status quo existing as on today.
In case no proceedings are initiated by the appellants herein, the benefit granted as aforesaid shall stand withdrawn.
With the aforesaid observation, this Appeal is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.