The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to handover possession of land to the grantees/surviving heirs as also to cancel the certificate of those grantees who are selling their land.
The PIL filed by one Md. Abul Khair prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents to handover possession of land to grantees or their surviving legal heirs as certificates of settlement of land under Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, has been issued to them, but up-till now possession has not been given to them or their legal heirs;
(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents concern to cancel the certificate of grantees of Bhoodan Land under Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, as they in the contravention of the provisions of the Act, have sold the Bhoodan land and invested the sale proceeds elsewhere and other places in compliance of letter dated 18.2.2015 contained in letter No.14210 issued by Principal Secretary of Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna;
(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondents to settle the land which may come to State on account of cancellation of Bhoodan land certificates in favour of landless poor persons.
That petitioner is a resident of Nari Bhadawn and claims that several persons in the said mauza who have been issued land certificates under Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 are not in possession of their land. Further, several of such persons were not given possession over the land by the State and in other cases, they were dispossessed recently by the anti-social elements. The case is that though these persons represented everywhere, but respondents took no action.
Further, some of the beneficiaries who were allotted lands under ‘the 1954 Act’ sold it in favour of different persons and invested the sale proceeds in real estate in violation of ‘the 1954 Act’. The further case of the petitioner is that under ‘the 1954 Act’, the beneficiaries have no right to sell the land rather they can only exchange the land from other beneficiaries that too with the prior permission of the authority.
The Counsel submits that the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department also issued letter directing the District Officer, Araria that in case of land being transferred to any third person, the same shall be considered illegal and the purchaser of such land will have no right over the land. It was also communicated to the entire districts of the State dated 18.2.2015.
Section 14 of ‘the 1954 Act’ relates to grant of land to landless persons while section 14A provides protection to the grantee of Bhoodan land from ejectment and envisage as follows:
14A. Protection to the grantee of Bhoodan land from ejectment.- (1) If a grantee has been ejected by any person from the land granted to him under section 14 of the Act or any part thereof otherwise than in accordance with law, then the grantee may apply to the Revenue Officer for restoration of his possession over the land or part thereof from which he has been so ejected.
(2) The Revenue Officer may on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or on his own motion, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, order that the grantee shall be put in possession of the land or part thereof from which he has been so ejected.
(3) If a grantee is threatened with unlawful ejectment from the land granted to him under section 14 of the Act or any part thereof by any person, the Revenue Officer may, on his own motion or on application made in this behalf by the grantee initiate a proceeding for preventing such person from ejecting the grantee and may. after hearing the parties for which due notice shall have been given to them, or even after ex parte hearing, in cases of emergency, by an order giving reason thereof in writing restrain such person from ejecting the grantee:
Provided that where an ex parte order has been made, the Revenue Officer shall soon thereafter as may be possible hear the parties after giving due notice to them, and may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, confirm the order but, if after such hearing he finds that there are no reasonable grounds for such order he will set aside the same and reject the prayer.
(4) If the person against whom an order has been made under sub-section (2) fails to carry out the order of the Revenue Officer within such time, if any, as may be specified in the order, the Revenue Officer may eject him from such land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary, and put the grantee in possession of such land.
Further, section 22 deals with the ejectment of persons in unlawful possession of lands while section 22 A provides procedure for ejectment. It is again necessary to record section 22 and 22 A of ‘the Act’.
- Ejectment of persons in unlawful possession of lands.- Any person who takes possession, otherwise than in accordance with law, of any land in respect of which Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra has been previously confirmed under Section 11, may be ejected from such land by the Revenue Officer, suo motu on his own information or an application by the Committee:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has instituted a civil suit to set aside the order of the Revenue Officer under Section 11 or Section 15 and has secured orders in the suit staying ejectment.
22A. Procedure for ejectment.- Where the Revenue Officer is of opinion that any person is liable to be ejected from any land under sub-section (2) of Section 16 or Section 21 or Section 22, he shall, by an order in writing serve in the prescribed manner on the person in possession of the land require him to deliver possession thereof to the Committee, or show cause, if any, against the order within a time to be specified therein and if such person fails to deliver possession or show cause or if the Revenue Officer rejects any cause shown by such person after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Revenue Officer shall, for reasons to be recorded, take or cause to be taken such steps or use or cause to be used such force as, in his opinion may be necessary for securing ejectment of such person from such land.
From the aforesaid sections ,the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy noted that all the points which have been raised by the petitioner. In the petition, on the one hand, the petitioner makes a prayer for directing the respondents to handover possession of land to the grantees/surviving heirs as also to cancel the certificate of those grantees who are selling their land. The letter addressed to the Under Secretary of the Board of Revenue, Bihar Bhoodan Committee as also other respondents clearly shows that he wants action against private individuals without impleading them party respondents. The case is thus fit to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
“From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that a private interest litigation has been given the color of the public interest litigation. Though, this Court wanted to impose exemplary cost while dismissing the writ petition, we are refraining from doing so”, the Bench ordered.