Satya Narayan Barahai vs Collector, Begusarai, Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai and Anchaladhikari (Circle Officer), Balia Anchal, District Begusarai

Honorable Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.1990 passed by the Collector, Begusarai in Revenue Misc. Case No. 26/86 affirming the judgment and order dated 30.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai in Jamabandi Case No. 13 of 1970-71 by which the plea of the petitioner to correct the Jamabandi and recognize his rights as a valid raiyat in respect of the land in question has been rejected. While passing the aforesaid impugned order the Collector had noted the fact recorded by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms that the petitioner''s possession over the land in question is very old and part of the land in the same plot is also in petitioner''s Jamabandi and otherwise fit for settlement with him. It was thus held by the Collector in the impugned order dated 9.4.1990 that in the present matter the proceeding for settlement would be the legal procedure.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the admitted position regarding the long possession of the petitioner over the land in question and considering the recommendation of the Circle Officer and particularly the D.C.L.R. the petitioner would be prepared to approach the authorities for the settlement of the land in question in his favor. It is urged that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is now an old man aged more than 80 years, he would like to see the end of this litigation in his own life time.

Learned counsel further submits that in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is admitted that the rates of settlement are the same as in the case of correction of Jamabandi. He, however, points out that Khata No. 805 mentioned in paragraph-5 of the supplementary counter affidavit as also in the order of the Collector is not correct and should be correctly read as Khata No. 825 and the other Khata No. 1980 has been wrongly mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit although correctly stated in the impugned order of the Collector as Khata No. 1890

On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the authority concerned should take a reasonable view in the matter in considering the case of the petitioner for settlement in view of the undisputed long possession of the petitioner over the land in question and there being Jamabandi of adjacent land of the same plot in the petitioner''s name.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balia, who is the competent authority in the matter of settlement as per the supplementary counter affidavit. In case such an application is filed along with a copy of this order then the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balia shall consider and dispose of the same taking a sympathetic view of the matter in the light of the aforesaid recommendation of the D.C.L.R. and the observation of the Collector within a period of four months from the filing of the application.