CIVIL APPEAL 10817 of 2024 on 16 January 1989

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and LandReforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner Patna.

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgrih, District Nalanda.

5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rajgrih, District Nalanda.

6. The Circle Officer, Silao, District Nalanda.

7. Sri Surendra Prasad, Son of Sri Hari Mahto, Resident of Village - Dharhra,P.S. Silao, District Nalanda.P.S. Silao, District Nalanda.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Arjun KumarFor the Respondent/s: Mr.Standing Counsel 15

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHAORAL ORDER

14-10-20251. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is the owner of the land situated in Khata No. 290, Plot No. 1576having an area of 06 decimal situated in Mauza – Dharahra,Anchal- Silao, District- Nalana. The land was purchased by hisfather namely Late Sukhi Mahto, S/o Late Gulab Mahto throughregistered sale deed dated 16.01.1989 from the rightful ownerJugdeo Mahto, Baso Mahto and Nawal Kishore Prasad. Theland was mutated in the name of petitioner’s father. Afterpartition, the petitioner was allotted his share in the land having4 FT & 20 FT in the North side. The land of respondent no. 7 is situated just adjacent towards the North of the petitioner’s land.The petitioner left 4 Ft land in the North side for passage. Theprivate respondent no. 7 has started construction over the saidland encroaching a part of the land in question belonging to thepetitioner left by him for passage. Referring to Section 4 (a) ofthe Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (for short“Disputes Resolution Act”) learned counsel submits that thecompetent authority i.e. D.C.L.R. has the jurisdiction andauthority to resolve disputes regarding unauthorized andunlawful dispossession from the raiyati land.

2. The encroachment upon the land of the petitioneramounts to his unlawful dispossession for which the petitionerfiled an application before the D.C.L.R., Rajgrih under theprovisions of the Disputes Resolution Act, which was registeredas Land Dispute Case No. 60 / 2022-23. The D.C.L.R. by itsorder dated 13.06.2023 directed the Circle Officer, Silao,Nalanda to do measurement of the land and submit report. Theenquiry report was submitted by the Anchal Amin and the CircleOfficer before the D.C.L.R. with finding that 133 Sq Ft of thepetitioner’s land has been encroached by the respondent no. 7but the D.C.L.R., Rajgrih is sitting tight over the matter and isnot passing the final order.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per Section4(5) of the Disputes Resolution Act if it appears to thecompetent authority that the case instituted before him involvescomplex question of adjudication of title, he shall close theproceeding and leave it open to the parties to seek remediesbefore the competent civil court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gonethrough material on record. From perusal of the order passed bythe D.C.L.R. in proceeding initiated under the DisputesResolution Act it appears that the D.C.L.R. registered the caseand directed for measurement of the disputed land and theCircle Officer, Silao, Nalanda after measurement submitted itsreport. It appears that after submission of report the D.C.L.R.has not proceeded further and no final order has been passed inLand Dispute Case No. 60 of 2022-23.

5. As per preamble of the Disputes Resolution Act disputesrelating to record of rights, boundaries, entries in revenuerecords, unlawful occupation of raiyati land and forcibledispossession of allottees and settlees of public land generateproblems and cause unnecessary harassment to bona fideallotees / settlees, raiyats or occupants. Such disputes withrespect to raiyati land or public land allotted in favour of different classes of allottees are unnecessarily occupying majorspace of Civil Courts and Hon’ble High Court and whichshould otherwise have been resloved by the revenue authorities,who may be better equipeed to deal with such disputes havingregard to their continued presence in the field offices and theirexpertise in revenue administration. Accordingly, in the largerpublic interest it was deemed necessary to provide for effectiveand speedy mechanism to resolve such disputes which give riseto major turbulence if not addressed immediately andeffectively. In this background, the Disputes Resolution Act wasenacted and Section 4 of the Disputes Resolution Act confersjurisdiction and authority upon the D.C.L.R. to resolve suchdisputes.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.7 has encroached upon his land unauthorisedly thereby causingunlawful dispossession of the petitioner from his raiyati land.Section 13 of the Disputes Resolution Act prescribes the entireprocedure for resolution of disputes.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion on fact and law itappears to this Court that the D.C.L.R., Rajgrih, Nalanda has notexercised his jurisdiction properly and has kept the matterpending for a long time after submission of measurement report praful/- U

by the Circle Officer.

8. In the result, D.C.L.R., Rajgrih, District Nalanda isdirected to dispose the Land Dispute Case No. 60 of 2022-23expeditiously preferably within a period of five months inaccordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to allconcerned including the respondent no. 7 by a speaking andreasoned order.

9. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the writapplication is disposed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)