Rajgrihi Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 370 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Rajgrihi Singh, Son of Late Gupt Nath Singh.

2.

Ram Chandra Singh, Son of Late Gupt Nath Singh. 3.

Ram Adhin Singh, Son of Late Gupt Nath Singh. 4.

Ashok Kumar Son of Sri Rajgrihi Singh.

5.

Bimal Kumar Son of Sri Rajgrihi Singh.

6.

Rameshwar Singh, Son of late Basawan Singh.

7.

Kashi Nath Singh Son of Parsuram Singh. All Petitioners are resident of Village- Sundar, Bahuara, P.S. Kudra, District Kaimur, Bhabhua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The District Additional Collector, Kaimur Bhabhua. 3.

The D.C.L.R. Land Reform, Mohania , Kaimar Bhabua. 4.

The Anchal Adhikari Kudra, Kaimur Bhabua.

5.

Dr. Mahanath Shivanand Puri, Maharaj /Sewait of Laxmi Narayan Shiv Parwati and Ganesh Temple Resident of Village- Sundur Bahuara, P.S. Kudra, District Kaimur Bhabua.

6.

Narmadeshwar Puri, Chela Sri Goswami Vidyapuri Resident of VillageSundar Bahuara, P.S. Kudra, District Kaimur Bhabua. 7.

Janki Devi Wife of Kailash Rai Resident of Village-Sundar Bahuara, P.S. Kudra ,District Kaimur Bhabua.

8.

Mukti Nath Chaubey Son of Late Ramdhari Choubey. 9.

Dulhin Lalita Devi Wife of Muktinath Chaubey. Both 8 and 9 are Resident of Village- Sundar Bahuara, P.S. Kudra, District Kaimur Bhabua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamlesh Prasad Singh and Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Advocates For the State :

Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, AC to SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to SC 6 for the State.

Patna High Court CWJC No.370 of 2016 dt.27-02-2020 2/3

2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"(a) For set a side the order dated 25-82015 passed by the Biahr Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No. 799 of 2014 which is rejected and confirmed the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by Additional Collector, Kaimur Bhabua and order dated 3.06.2013 passed by Learned D.C.L.R. Mohania, Dist. Kaimur Bhabuara.

(b) For set a side the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Kaimur Bhabua in Mutation Revision Case No.

44/13-14 which is rejected without consideration of the facts and circumstances.

(c) For set a side the order dated 3.06.2013 passed by the D.C.L.R., Mohnia, in mutation appeal Case No. 18/2011-12 which is set aside the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Anchal Adhikari Kudra in Mutation Case No. 558/2009-10.

(d) Any other writ(s) for granting any other relief(s) to the petitioners for they found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case."

3. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that the lands which they had brought from the person, who was allotted the land in his private share in a compromise between the Mahant and the vendor of the petitioners, jamabandi allowed earlier in his favour, has now been set aside by the DCLR, the Collector as well as the Bihar Land Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that with regard to the said lands, the title has already been decided against the petitioners in a title suit and appeal has also been dismissed,

Patna High Court CWJC No.370 of 2016 dt.27-02-2020 3/3 holding that the land belonged to the Math and, thus, there could not have been any compromise with regard to the title of the land, much less, in favour of the vendor of the petitioners by treating the said land to be his private land.

5. The Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the State. Till the time, there is a judgment of the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction declaring the title of the entire lands in favour of the Math, which has been confirmed in appeal and the same having become final, the vendor of the petitioners could not have become the owner of the lands by compromise/ mutual agreement. Thus, the petitioners could not have inherited a right and title better than that of the vendor which has been negated by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

6. In view thereof, the writ petition being misconceived, stands dismissed.

7. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to move before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, with regard to their grievance.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T