IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.661 of 2010
In
C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 2010
With
I.A. No. 3435 of 2010
======================================================
1. Md. Jalal s/o Late Gharro r/o Vill.- Kajlaita, P.S. and Anchal- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria (Bihar)
2. Md. Khalil S/O Late Gharro r/o Vill.- Kajlaita, P.S. and Anchal- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria (Bihar)
3. Md. Arif S/o Late Gharro r/o Vill.- Kajlaita, P.S. and Anchal- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria (Bihar)
4. Bibi Ajmerun W/o Md. Jahangir Alam r/o Vill.- Kajlaita, p.s. and
Anchal - Jokihat, Distt.- Araria (Bihar)
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector (D.M.) of Distt.- Araria
3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Araria
4. The Anchala Adhikari (C.O.), Jokihat, Distt.- Araria
5. Md. Abdul Kadir s/o Late Safid r/o Vill.- Kajleta, p.s. and Anchal-
Jokihat, Distt.- Araria
6. Bibi Halimo d/o Late Safid r/o Vill.- Kajleta, P.S. and Anchal- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria
7. Bibi Habiya d/o Late Safid r/o Vill.- Kajleta, P.S. and Anchal- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria
8. Bibi Saliman d/o Late Jahangir Alam r/o Vill.- Kajleta, P.S.- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria
9. Bibi Rahmati w/o Zamir Akhtar r/o Vill.- Kajleta, P.S.- Jokihat, Distt.-
Araria
10.Bibi Mahida Khatoon D/o Zamir Akhtar r/o Vill.- Kajleta, p.s.- Jokihat,
Distt.- Araria
======================================================
2
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1-4 : Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, A.C. to S.C. XI
For the Respondent Nos.5 to 10: Mr. M.Z. Quamar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
7 30.11.2010 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3435 of 2010
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
made by the appellants for condonation of delay of 11 days
occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
delay is condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 661 of 2010
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9th February 2010
made by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C.No.2290 of
2010 the writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause
10 of the Letters Patent.
The appellants claim occupancy right as under-raiyats
over the land, Revisional Survey Sikmi Khata No. 21, Kaiyami
Khata No. 62 Khesra No. 447 admeasuring .7 ½ decimals of
village- Kajleta Anchal- Jokihat District-Araria
By order dated 24th February 1997 made in Case No. 13
of 1992-93 under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tenancy Act’), the Circle Officer,
Jokihat accepted the claim of the occupancy right of the
appellants under-raiyats on condition that they paid compensation
3
equivalent to 24 times the rent. It was further directed that the
amount of compensation be paid to the respondent raiyat or may
be deposited in the Treasury; that the occupancy certificate would
be issued on payment of the amount of compensation. It is not in
dispute that the appellants did not pay the amount of
compensation. They, therefore, did not acquire the occupancy
right. After a lapse of more than 7 years, they again approached
the Circle Officer, Jokihat under the aforesaid Section 48D for
conferment of the occupancy right in Case No. 9 of 2003-04.
The Circle Officer, Jokihat allowed the said claim on Ist
December 2005.
Feeling aggrieved the land holders preferred Appeal
No. 40 of 2005-06 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, by order dated 12th August
2009, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Circle
Officer, Jokihat. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the claim
of the appellants.
Feeling aggrieved the appellants preferred the above writ
petition that came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, the present Appeal.
Learned Advocate, Mr. Shashi Nath Jha has appeared for
the appellants. He has submitted that neither the Tenancy Act nor
the Rules made thereunder specify time within which the amount
of compensation should be paid. The appellants are, therefore, at
liberty to pay the amount at any time. The appellants have
offered to pay the amount and therefore, they should be issued
occupancy certificate on payment of the amount of compensation.
We see no substance in the submission made by the
learned advocate. Section 48D(3) of the Tenancy Act read with
Rule 1A(d) of the Bihar Tenancy Rules provides for payment of
compensation equivalent to 24 times the rent in one lump-sum in
presence of the Circle Officer or in suitable installments which
shall not exceed five annual installments. i.e. the amount of
compensation required to be paid by under-raiyat for conferment
4
of the occupancy right can at the most be paid within five years
that too in five annual installments. Admittedly neither the
appellants paid the amount of rent in one lump-sum nor in five
annual installments as envisaged by the Rule 1A(d) of the Rules.
Thus, the appellants forfeited the occupancy right under Section
48D of the Tenancy Act. The Tenancy Act does not envisage
another opportunity to claim occupancy right. The appellants
have thus permanently forfeited occupancy right by not paying
the amount of compensation within the period and in the manner
specified in Rule 1A(d) of the Rules.
The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ
petition. No case for interference is made out.
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
( R.M. Doshit, CJ.)
(Jyoti Saran, J.)
Bibhash