In the first two judgements dated January 7, 2026 authored by 47th Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo as part of the Division Bench-I which included Justice Sudhir Singh, the judgments by Justices Satyavrat Verma and Nawneet Kumar Pandey have been upheld in Meera Devi Mantri vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Government of Bihar (2026) and Saroj Kumar Rakshit @ Nanu Da @ Saroj Rakshit @ Nanu Baba vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar (2026) respectively.
In its 6-page long judgement, the Division Bench concluded:"5. The scope of a Letters Patent Appeal is very limited and it cannot be greater that the original Writ Petition. The Appellant Court, while exercising intra-court appellate jurisdiction, cannot go beyond the pleadings, issues and materials which were placed before the learned Writ Court."
Chief Justice Sahoo referred to the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Netai Bag vs. State of West Bengal., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 262, wherein it observed:“13. …..The appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and in this Court being in continuation of the original proceedings in the form of writ petition, cannot enlarge the scope of inquiry at this belated stage…….”
He also referred to Supreme Court's decision in Devilal Modi vs. STO, reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 17, wherein it observed: “9. ….. the rule of constructive res judicata which is pleaded against him in the present appeal is in a sense a somewhat technical or artificial rule prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule postulates that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he would not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding which is based on the same cause of action; but basically, even this view is founded on the same considerations of public policy, because if the doctrine of constructive res judicata is not applied to writ proceedings, it would be open to the party to take one proceeding after another and urge new grounds every time; and that plainly is inconsistent with considerations of public policy to which we have just referred.”
Endorsing Justice Verma's judgement, the Division Bench concluded:"7. In view of the limited scope of interference in the Letters Patent Appeal, since we find no palpable error on the face of the records, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and we are not accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that she had not been given any opportunity of hearing to file the counter-affidavit. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. Accordingly, the L.P.A. stands dismissed."
In the related matter of Meera Devi Mantri, Justice Verma had delivered a 10-page long judgement dated January 20, 2025 in Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), wherein he concluded:"17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a considered conclusion that the State by applying its might is disturbing the petitioners. The authorities without challenging the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 are settling the Jalkars in favour of the private respondents continuously which amply demonstrates that the authorities do not have any regards for the orders passed by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction rather it gives an impression that the authorities throws the order of the Civil Court in dustbin, pleadings made at para 13 of the counter affidavit borders on contempt for the reason that the State of Bihar was a party in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 and the judgment and decree in the said title suit was passed in the year 1973 on contest and the suit was decided in favour of the petitioners herein and the State of Bihar never challenged the said judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 before any superior forum but then after 51 years a plea has been taken that the State Authorities are contemplating to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 which amply demonstrates the conduct of the respondent authorities, the less said the better it is. 18. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Court directs the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhagalpur and the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur not to interfere with the private Jalkars of the petitioners till judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 is in existence. 19. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction and observation."
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that ancestors of petitioners had purchased fishery rights of 2 Jalkars, namely, Kharnai Nadi and Til Juggadhar from Mr. N.M. Grant by two registered sale deeds both dated December 19, 1944. Since then ancestors of the petitioners had physical possession of the two Jalkars. They had fishing rights through their settlees by issuing Hukumnama. After purchasing the Jalkars, the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were recorded and registered in place of N.M. Grant in the Collectorate of Bhagalpur as owners and proprietors in the Jalkar Register known as Register-D and the Jalkars. It was also submitted that after coming in force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Parwana for the year 1964-65 was issued in favour of Machuwa Sahyog Samiti on the premise that Jalkars in question have vested in the State of Bihar. The ancestors of petitioners filed Title Suit in 1965 in which the State of Bihar was impleaded as a defendant along with Machuwa Sahyog Samiti and others for a permanent injunction against the defendant State and Machuwa Sahyog Samiti and also for declaration that the right of fishing in the said Jalkars have not vested in the State under the provisions of the 1950 Act. The Sub-Ordinate Judge, Bhagalpur after hearing the parties vide judgment and decree dated February 16, 1973 permanently restrained the State Authorities and Machuwa Sahyog Samiti from interfering with the Jalkars. The judgment and decree in the Title Suit of 1965 attained finality in absence of any challenge and, as such, the ancestors of petitioners and petitioners after them remain in physical possession of the Jalkars and exercise their fishing right through their settlees by executing settlement and the said position continued till 1990.
The State authorities again in 1991-92 issued Parwana in favour of the Samiti in complete disregard of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit of 1965, compelling the petitioners to file Title Suit in1992 for a declaration that State of Bihar had no right to settle the Jalkars in favour of the Samiti and the State of Bihar and Samiti have no right to disturb and interfere with the fishing rights of the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) over the Jalkars in question. The Title Suit of 1992 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on February 28, 2011 and the State Authorities were restrained them from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs, thus, the judgment passed in Title Suit of 1992 reaffirmed the judgment and decree in Title Suit of 1965. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the settlees of the petitioners had also filed C.W.J.C. No. 19883 of 2021 for quashing the Parwana issued by the respondent dated November 8, 2021 for the year 2021-22 in favour of Meera Devi Mantri, Naugachia, Bhagalpur, the respondent no. 6 in complete disregard of the judgment and decree in Title Suit of 1965 and Title Suit of 1992.
The High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19883 of 2021 had stayed the Parwana by an order dated December 15, 2021, thereafter the settlees of the petitioners started fishing in the said Jalkars but the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naugachia, Bhagalpur, the respondent no. 4 initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the High Court also based on the submission of the respondents vacated the order of stay dated December 15, 2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 19883 of 2021 by an order dated March 24, 2022 by Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma in Subhash Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2022) which led to looting of the entire fish of the Jalkars by the Samiti people.
The judgement by the Division Bench implies that Justice Sharma's order has been reversed and Justice Verma's judgement has been upheld.
During course of hearing before Justice Vema bench, it was submitted by the counsel of the petitioners that though the time of Parwana issued for the year 2021-2022 lapsed but the petitioners learnt that the District Fishery Officer-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur, the respondent no. 5 had already issued Parwana for the year 2023-2024 in favour of Meera Devi, the respondent no. 6, as such, petitioners filed an application under the RTI Act seeking information about the issuance of the Parwana but no information was provided.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authorities had no right to interfere with the Jalkars of the petitioners as Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006 had no application in the present case as Jalkars are privately owned Jalkars as was decided in the Title Suit of 1965. It was further submitted that the authorities were defying the judgment and decree passed in the Title Suit of 1965 and the Title Suit of 1992. This compelled the petitioners and their settlees to approach the High Court. It was submitted that notices were issued on Smt. Meea Devi, the respondent no. 6 by an order dated February 21, 2024 and the notice was been received by the husband of the respondent no. 6, as such, a jointness application was filed on April 24, 2024. Since jointness application was filed, as such, the notices were deemed to have been validly served and respondent no. 6 was represented by her lawyer.
The counsel of the petitioners pointed out that the State of Bihar never challenged the judgment and decree passed in the Title Suit of 1965 although the State of Bihar was a party. The counter affidavit by the State Authorities took a peculiar stand to state that the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioners in the Title Suit of 1965 was not brought to the notice of the State, as such, the State is contemplating to challenge the same and against the judgment and decree in the Title Suit of 1992 an appeal being Title Appeal No. 31 of 2021 was filed and the same was pending adjudication before the Additional District Judge, Naugachia. The case was taken up on January 15, 2025 and the State was directed to seek further instruction in the matter.
The State Counsel submitted that he had personally talked to the Collector and after an inquiry a decision was taken at the level of the Collector to stay the settlement made in favour of Meera Devi, the respondent no. 6 for the year 2024-25.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that this showed the might of the State and the audacity of the Collector and the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer that despite the instant writ application being pending adjudication before the High Court in which a stand was taken that the State of Bihar was permanently restrained from interfering with the private Jalkars of the petitioners in Title Suit of 1965 but still the State Authorities continuously was settling the Jalkars in favour of Meera Devi, the private respondent no. 6 and when the case was taken up on January 15, 2025 and an order was passed requiring the State Counsel to seek further instruction in the matter and based on instruction it was submitted that the settlement made in favour of respondent no. 6 for the year 2024-2025 was stayed, which amply demonstrates that the Jalkars were settled for the period 2024-2025 and the petitioners were not even aware. It was submitted that since the State did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit of 1965, as such, they cannot even touch the Jalkars of the petitioners and they should be directed not to interfere with the private rights of the petitioners over the Jalkars. The counter affidavit stating that the State was contemplating to file an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit 1965 amply demonstrated that the State indulges in leisure litigation and does not even feel embarrassed in taking such a stand before the High Court.
The counsel appearing on behalf of Meera Devi, the private respondent no. 6 submitted that he haf appeared in the case on January 15, 2025 and the Jalkars in dispute in the instant writ application were not the same Jalkars which finds mention in the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit of 1965.
This submission was vehemently rebutted by the counsel of the petitioners. It was submitted that the Jalkars are the same and there is an order passed by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. The High Court's Division Bench has vindicated Justice Verma's judgement.
In Saroj Kumar Rakshit @ Nanu Da @ Saroj Rakshit @ Nanu Baba vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar (2026), Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey passed a 2-page long order, wherein he concluded:"The petitioner, if so advised, may raise his grievance before the Bihar Land Tribunal under Section 9 of the B.L.T. Act, 2009. If the petitioner seeks the alternative remedy within a period of four weeks, the Bihar Land Tribunal shall decide the matter on merit within a period of six months." In view of Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act 2009, since the petitioner had got an alternative remedy, he was advised to approach the Tribunal. Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 reads: “9. Powers of the Tribunal.-(1) The Tribunal shall have the power to entertain any application against the final order passed by the Appropriate Authorities under the Acts/Manuals, mentioned below, within 90 days of such an order provided no other forum of appeal or revision against the order passed is provided in that Act/Manuals: (i) xx xx xx (ii) xx xx xx (x) Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. 7.
Endorsing Justice Pandey's order, in its 4-page long judgement, the Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sahoo concluded:"In view of the settled position of law that when the alternative efficacious remedy is available, the Writ Court should not entertain the writ petition and in view of specific provision available, we find no illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the limited scope of this Letters Patent Appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the same. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed....9. If the appellant is so advised, he can approach the learned Tribunal and if any limitation application is filed for condoning the delay, the same shall be considered by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law, taking into account that the appellant has not only approached the Writ Court but also filed this letter patent appeal."
No comments:
Post a Comment