Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1184 (JHR)

Galo Mardi v. State of Jharkhand

2002-11-25

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, R.K.MERATHIA

body2002
JUDGMENT By Court.-Mani Santhalin, wife of Ghasi Santhal of village Karandi now within Singhbhum East district, filed Title Suit No. 2279 of 1965 against Thura Manjhi and Munna Manjhi, in the court of Munsif, Jamshedpur for declaration of her right, title and interest over the lands, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint, i.e. northern portion of Plot No. 5413, measuring 38 decimals. In the said suit a compromise petition, Annexure 2 was filed on 7.2.19136 admitting her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lane! by defendants adversely and openly for more than twelve years without any interruption from any body and accordingly the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise. 2. After lapse of about twenty-eight years, Mani Santhalia filed a petition for mutation of her name in the Jamabandi running for the land in question in the Register II, the tenants' ledger maintained by the State Government on the basis of the aforesaid compromise decree, which was allowed by the Anchal Adhikari, Jamshedpur, on 16.8.1994, Annexure 4. 3. Sugda Manjhi, respondent no. 5, son of late Thura Manjhi, who was one of the defendants in the aforesaid suit, preferred appeal against the said order of mutation. The Mutation Appeal was dismissed on 26.6.1997 by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jamshedpur, vide Annexure 6. Thereafter the respondent no. 5 preferred Mutation Revision Case No. 33 of 1997-98 which was heard and allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on 8.12.1998 vide Annexure 7. It was observed that since the Deputy Commissioner was not made party to the said suit nor any permission was obtained as required under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the prayer made for mutation of Mani Santhalin is rejected and consequently orders passed by the Anchal Adhikari and Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, are set aside. 4. Meanwhile Mani Santhalin died and her son Khela Ram Mardi also died, leaving behind his widow Galo Mardi, who preferred CWJC No. 59 of 1999 (R) in this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by impugned order dated 20.3.2001, mainly on the basis that the Deputy Commissioner was not made party in the 1965 suit and the petition for mutation was filed after twenty-eight years. 5. 5. It is well settled that a decree passed by the civil court can be modified or set aside by the competent authority in prescribed manner and the Revenue Officer dealing with the mutation matters cannot go behind the said decree. The civil courts' decree unless is modified or set aside has to be respected. In the present case, the observation of the Deputy Commissioner that the 1965 suit was bad for non-joinder of the Deputy Commissioner was simply an error of law, as the relevant provision for impleading the Deputy Commissioner came into being only in the year 1976, pursuant to the amendment in the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908; whereas the suit in which compromise decree was passed was tiled in the year 1965 and was already disposed of on 7.2.1996. So the amended provision of section 46(3) of the said Act was not applicable herein. 6. Further, even if the compromise decree was fit to be set aside on the ground of maintainability of the suit itself, it could have been done only by the competent forum. In a mutation proceeding, the Revenue Officer was not authorized to go into such questions. So far as the question of delay in taking step for mutation was concerned, even if a prayer for 'mutation was made after twenty-eight years, in absence of any fixed period of limitation for such application and in view of the fact that a Jamabandi for total 80 decimals land of plot no. 5413 (out of which 38 decimals belonged, to Galo Mardi) was already running and the rent was also being paid to the State Government regularly, the only question was for bifurcation of the said Jamabandi to the extent of 38 decimals, which according to the compromise decree belonged to Mani Santhalin, deceased mother-in-law of the appellant, Galo Mardi, mutation' of her name could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. 7. In the aforesaid circumstance, we allow this Appeal and set aside the order (Annexure 7) of the Deputy Commissioner as also impugned order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWJC No. 59 of 1999 (R). 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, but without costs.