ORDER
1. The present appeal arises out of the order passed under provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
2. Admittedly, Plot Nos. 1058 and 1139 having total area of 17.99 acres stood recorded in the Khatiyan as Gair Abad Malik, Chandra Mohan Singh of Nagarkiyari estate was the landlord thereof. In respect of the said milkiyat. Title Suit No. 450 of 1934 was pending wherein one Hemendra Chandra Mallik, Advocate was appointed Receiver. 3. It is said that during pendency of the said suit, after obtaining necessary permission of the Court, the said Receiver on 7.12.1944, executed a registered permanent lease-patta and made raiyati settlement of those Gair Abad Malik lands in favour of one Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan, whose name was mutated on 14.3.1945 as raiyat thereof.
4. By virtue of the aforesaid settlement, nature of the land changed from Gair Abad Malik to raiyati. Consequently, the said land did not vest into the State Government, under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
5. By two registered sale deed dated 17.3.1988, Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan sold the entire 17.99 acres land to four persons, namely, Gulam Mustafa, Sushil Kumar Piruka, Mohanlal Jain and Sawarmal Ban-sal, son of P. Bansal-all of Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
6. A perusal of the patta dated 7.12.1944 reveals that thereby a permanent settlement with raiyati right was made by the receiver with Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan for the premium and/or salami, subject to payment, subject to payment of annual rent.
7. After purchase in the year 1988, Sawarmal Bansal installed a factory over a portion of the aforesaid land, measuring more or less 5.02 acres of plot No. 1139.
8. A proceeding under Section 3 of the 1956 Act was initiated against Sawarmal, vide B.P.L.E. Case No. 244 of 1991-1992 in respect of 11 acres of land. It is claimed that relevant documents, namely, the registered patta dated 7.12.1944, two registered sale deeds dated 17.3.1988 and the rent receipts granted to Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan were produced before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on 7.4.1992, but without taking notice thereof the proceeding was decided against him and he was directed to remove the encroachments.
9. Against the said order B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 1 of 1998 was preferred, which was also dismissed on 27.12.1999. It is claimed that the documents which were produced before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector were again filed before the appellate authority on 12.12.1995.
10. In the meantime, Sawarmal took step for mutation of his name over 5.02 acres land of plot No. 1139, out of the total 17.99 acres, which was allowed.
11. On 6.5.2000, Sawarmal was given notice to remove encroachments aforesaid. Thereafter he filed CWJC No. 414 of 2000(R) in this Court, challenging the aforesaid orders and claiming his raiyati interest in the lands in question.
12. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Application on 10.11.2001, observing that the question of title could not have been gone into and decided in the proceeding under the 1956 Act and the writ petitioner was at liberty to get it decided before the competent forum. However, the orders passed under the 1956 Act were not interfered with.
13. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents in the present appeal justifying the orders impugned passed under the 1956 Act. It is claimed that the lands in question being Gair Abad Malik vested in the State Government under the provisions of the 1950 Act and consequently the appellant and/or his vendor were tress-passers and encroachers upon the pubic land and were rightly directed to remove the encroachments.
14. It is further claimed that the Receiver appointed during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 450 of 1934 was not empowered to transfer/settled the lands in question with the appellant’s vendor and thereby the character of the land did not change and it stood vested under the 1950 Act.
15. Without going into the claim and counter claim of the parties relating to title at this stage, we are of the view that prima facie by virtue of raiyati settlement made in the year 1944, the appellant’s claim of raiyati interest appears to be fit to be adjudicated upon by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for deciding the question of title.
16. The moot question involved in the present case is whether before vesting of Jamindari, the nature of the lands in question changed from “Gair Abad Malik” to “raiyati” or not If not, the impugned orders passed under the 1956 Act are legal, valid and justified and the appellant is bound to remove the encroachments. Hence without setting aside those orders, we direct that the order dated 13.1.1998, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector,, which was confirmed by the appellate authority be kept in abeyance up to 30th June, 2004, with a liberty to the appellant to obtain an order of interim injunction, in accordance with law, against the State Government from implementing the said order dated 13.1.1998 in a properly constituted suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession against the State Government.
17. The appeal stands disposed of with above observation/direction. No costs.