Raghunath Prasad Singh and Others vs State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 3-12-1999 passed in Misc. Case No. 16/99, whereby the crops on the disputed lands were attached and the Deputy Collector was directed to sell the crops and deposit the sale proceeds in the treasury.

It has been submitted by the ''revisionists'' lawyer that several bataidari cases as also title suits were fought between the parties and all those cases were decided in favour of the revisionists. Writs were also filed by both the parties against the orders passed by the lower Courts and all these writs were decided in favour of the revisionists. So, the claim of the opposite party of this revision of bataidari right over the disputed lands were set at rest. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed fresh bataidari cases and by order dated 24-2-1996 these cases were instituted, but this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 24-2-1996 by order dated 7-11-1996 in CWJC No. 6280/96. Thereafter, the opposite party filed Misc. Case No. 16/99 alleging therein that inspite of the decision of bataidari right in their favour by order dated 24-2-1996 the revisionists were interfering with and disturbing their possession and were also preventing them from harvesting crops on the respective lands. The Misc. case was heard and then it was held by the SDM that Case No. 16/99 was not maintainable and so a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. was separately initiated (Misc. Case No. 500/99) on the advice of G. P. After filing of the show-cause by the revisionists, the Misc. case u/s 145, Cr. P.C. was dropped. But subsequently an order u/s 48-E (2) of the B.T. Act was passed in Misc. Case No. 16/99 which has been challenged in this revision.

When already this Court stayed the operation of the order passed on 24-2-1996 instituting bataidari cases there was no question of a fresh misc. case being entertained (16/99) on the allegation that members of the opposite party were being prevented from harvesting crops on the disputed lands. Moreover, when bataidari cases were already decided and claim of the opposite party was rejected regarding their bataidari rights, the order passed u/s 48-E of the B.T. Act was certainly passed under misconception of the legal provision as also misapplication of the admitted facts. When there was already settlement of the issue between the parties regarding bataidari right over the disputed lands, there was no question of fresh litigation over the claim of the opposite party.

In the result, the impugned order which was passed in haste and without application of judicial mind, is not sustainable. This revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the revisionists shall be entitled to withdraw the sale proceeds of the crops deposited in the treasury.