IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.466 of 2011
IN
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 6806 of 1991
WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 2122 of 2011
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.466 of 2011
====================================================
Shri Parmanand Prasad, S/o Late Banwari Lal Sah @ Banwari Lal Bhagat,
resident of Mohalla Babuaganj, Khagaria, Town, P.S. and District Khagaria.
.... .... Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
1. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Patna.
2. The Collector, Khagaria.
3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Khagaria.
4. Smt. Meena Devi, Wife of Shri Surendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla
Babuaganj, Khagaria, Town, P.S. and Dsitrict-Khagaria.
5. Mossamat Indira Devi, W/o Late Laxami Shanker Prasad
6. Shri Rajnish Kumar (Minor)
7. Mamta Devi (Minor)
8. Guria Kumari (Minor)
9. Chhoti Kumari (Minor)
No. 6 is minor son and no. 7 to 9 are minor daughters of late Laxami
Shankar Prasad, Minors under the guardianship of Mossamat Indira
Devi, their mother, natural Guardian and next friend. All No.5 to 9
are resident of Mohalla Babuaganj, Khagaria, Town, P.S. and District
Khagaria.
.... .... Respondents-Respondents
====================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2. 23.3.2011. The delay of 75 days occurred in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 9th November 2010 passed by the learned single
Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 6806 of 1991 the writ
-2-
petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of
the Letters Patent.
The matter at dispute relates to a piece of
land Thana No.254, Tauji No.534, Jamabandi No.34,
Khata No.1, Khesra No.12M admeasuring 3 bighas and
10 kathas situated at Mauja Bhadas Badh Babhana
Saroh, Pargana Faradiya, District Khagaria. In the year
1985 the said piece of land was sold by its original
owner to the respondent no.4 Smt. Meena Devi. The
appellant claimed that he is the owner of the land bearing
khesra Nos. 5M and 6M adjacent to the disputed land of
Khesra No.12M and that he had a right of preemption.
His claim was rejected by the authorities below on the
grounds that if the appellant’s rights were accepted his
holding would be in excess of the ceiling area and that he
was not the owner of the adjacent piece of land. A canal
passes on the boundary of the land Khesra No.12M
separating it from the other lands including the land
Khesra Nos.5M and 6M owned by the appellant. His
challenge to the orders of the authorities below in above
C.W.J.C. No. 6806 of 1991 has failed before the learned
single Judge. The learned single Judge has rejected the
claim of the appellant on the ground that his land Khesra
No.5M and 6M do not have a common boundary with
the land Khesra No.12M. Therefore, the present Appeal.
Learned Advocate Mr. Jagdish Prasad
Bhagat has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted
that out of the holding of the appellant equal to the
ceiling area, a large piece of land was acquired for
construction of the canal. The land Khesra No.5M
-3-
admeasuring seven decimals owned by the appellant is
contiguous to the land Khesra No.12M. Reliance is
placed on the revenue map Annexure-6 to the writ
petition. On perusal of the revenue map it appears that
the land Khesra No.12M is a long piece of land. The
canal in question runs on two sides of the said land
separating it from the other lands Khesra Nos.5, 6, 7 etc.
The land Khesra No.5M has on the eastern side a
common boundary with the northern part of the land
Khesra No.12M. It is, however, not established that the
piece of land sold to the respondent no.4 was contiguous
to the land Khesra No.5M.
In our view, the learned single Judge has
rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that
his land was contiguous to the piece of land sold to the
respondent no.4. Besides, the land was sold in the year
1985. We do not propose to disturb the possession of the
respondent no.4 more than 25 years after the land was
sold to her.
For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is
dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands
disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Pawan/-
