Patna HC Leaves Two Basgit Parchas Intact After Rival Claimant Fails To Prove Land Is His

The petitioner challenged an order of the Circle Officer issuing Basgit Parchas over disputed homestead land in favour of private respondents Urmila Devi and Shambhu Sharma.

He claimed that the land belonged to his family, that he lived there, and that he had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard in the Basgit Parcha proceeding.

The Collector dismissed his revision in 2014.

The petitioner’s earlier writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the Bihar Land Tribunal (BLT), which dismissed his case in 2023, finding that he had produced no substantive proof of ownership and permitting him to pursue a civil suit.

He then brought the present writ petition seeking to quash the Circle Officer’s, Collector’s, and BLT’s orders.

The petitioner relied on the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act and Rules, including the provisions concerning the definition of a privileged person or tenant (Sections 2(h)(i) and 2(j), as cited in argument), local inquiry and notice (Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(2)), and preparation of the homestead record or parcha (Rule 5(4)).

These provisions were advanced as grounds for challenging the Circle Officer’s process; the judgment does not independently interpret them or cite any precedent.

The Court assessed whether the BLT’s order disclosed illegality or perversity on the record before it and whether the petitioner had produced evidence supporting his ownership claim.

The Court noted that a general notice had been issued, no objections were received, and the Circle Officer acted on reports from revenue officials.

The petitioner’s procedural objections and ownership claim had been considered by the BLT, which found no substantive proof that the disputed land belonged to him.

The High Court found no apparent illegality or perversity in the BLT’s decision on the material before it.

It also accepted the Tribunal’s direction that the petitioner could pursue his property claim before a competent civil court.

The petitioner remained at liberty to seek adjudication of his grievances before the competent civil court; any pending applications were also disposed of.