Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1044 (JHR)

Sonaram Hansda v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-10-29

TAPEN SEN

body2004
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The Petitioner in the instant case prays interalia for an appropriate order restraining the Respondents from setling the Tank situated on Khata No. 169 Plot Nos. 67-68 under Mauza Hamsada commonly known as Hamsada Bandh. He further makes a prayer that this order should be delisted from the list of Tanks to be settled for financial year 2002-03 as he has apprehensions that the same would be settled and-included in the said list vide serial No. 20 thereof. The Petitioner has further made a prayer that the concerned Circle Officer be directed to fix rent of the Tank so that he may be able to pay rent to the State. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is a Scheduled Tribe and the aforementioned Tank situated on Khata No. 169. Plot No. 67-68 under Mauza Hamsada was constructed by the father of the Petitioner in the year 1956. After his death, the Petitioner inherited it but during the time of preparation of settlement records, it wrongly came to be recorded in the name of the State. He was at that time, a minor but later on, he filed Title Suit No. 54/1987 and by judgment dated 9.8.1988 (Annexure-4), the Suit was decreed and his title over the suit property was declared and confirmed, holding that he had permanent raiyati right and that the State- Defendants had acquired no right, title, interest or possession over the same. The said property fell comprised as under : Mauza C.S. Khata R.S. C.S. R.S. Area No. Khata Plot Plot No. No. No. Hamsada P.S. Chandil 147 1/500 67 2.20 Decimals 169 68 03 Decimals A Photocopy of the certified copy of the Judgment has been brought on record vide Annexure-4 appended to the Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner has stated that after the aforementioned judgment had been delivered, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella Kharsawan at Seraikella (Respondent No. 3) wrote a letter to the Circle Officer Chandil wherein, he informed him that the Petitioner had produced a copy of the Judgment delivered in Title Suit No. 54/1987. Accordingly, he directed, that as per the Judgment rendered therein, the Circle Officer was to take steps for fixation of rent. This is a document that proves that at least in the year 1993, the Respondents had become aware of the Judgment passed in Title Suit No. 54/1987. 5. Accordingly, he directed, that as per the Judgment rendered therein, the Circle Officer was to take steps for fixation of rent. This is a document that proves that at least in the year 1993, the Respondents had become aware of the Judgment passed in Title Suit No. 54/1987. 5. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that the Circle Officer did not fix rent and it was included in the list for auction for the period 2002-03. In spite of representation, the Respondents did nothing in the matter and instead, they continued to violate his right by including the Tank for auction. 6. The counter-affidavit of the Respondent No. 6 states that the Area in question was transferred to the Forest Department on 6.2.1993 and that the status report indicated that the said Tank was settled with one Rajesh Besara for the period 1990-91 to 1992 - 93 and after that, the Department of Fisheries settled the Tank regularly. In the year 2002-03 and in the year 2004-05, it was settled with the Petitioner himself. 7. In his Rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the Respondent No. 5, the Petitioner has vehemently denied the aforementioned statements and has submitted at paragraph-4 that he is concerned with Khata No. 169 relating to Plot Nos. 67 and 68. He submits that another Plot measuring 2.06 Decimals also known as Hamsada Bandh situated under the same Khata No. 169, but having Plot No. 368 was settled and NOT Plot Nos. 67 and 68. He has enclosed photocopy of the Notification vide Annexure-5 showing settlement of Plot No. 368. 8. A Supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submits interalia that the claim of the Petitioner is false and beyond record. It has further been stated that all these plots have been recorded as "Anabad Bihar Sarkar." The Khatian has been brought on record to show the same. 9. In the other Supplementary Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 and sworn by the Circle Officer, it has been stated that Plot Nos. 67 and 68 under Khata No. 169 are recorded as Talab and "Anabad Bihar Sarkar" and for which record of rights were published in the year 1964. 9. In the other Supplementary Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 and sworn by the Circle Officer, it has been stated that Plot Nos. 67 and 68 under Khata No. 169 are recorded as Talab and "Anabad Bihar Sarkar" and for which record of rights were published in the year 1964. It has also been stated that the suit was filed in the year 1987 i.e. more than 23 years after the final publication and it was a suit wherein only declaration of the Petitioners possession and permanent raiyati right was sought for but there was no relief claimed in relation to annulment of entries made in the record of rights. It has also been stated that the suit was decreed ex parte. It has also been stated that it is not clear as to whether the trial Court took recourse to service of notice or not. 10. This Court does not appreciate the stand of the Circle Officer. He has no bona fides to make comments on the trial Court to the effect that it is not clear as to whether recourse was taken for service of notice sufficiently by the trial Court as stated in para- 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed on 17.8.2004 because the suit was decreed and Judgment delivered on 9.8.1988 whereafter, Annexure - 1 shows that the respondent authorities became aware of the Judgment in the year 1993. There is nothing on record to show as to whether this Judgment was set aside in appeal or not or whether the Respondent took any steps to get this Order/Judgment set aside. There is also nothing to suggest that the Circle Officer or his predecessor in office or any other officer of the State prayed for review/recall or reversal of the Judgment on any ground including the one taken by the Circle Officer now. After 1993, when they became aware of the Judgment as is evident from Annexure - 1, they could have even at that stage, sought for review of the Order on the ground that it was not clear as to whether the trial Court had taken recourse of service of notice. After 1993, when they became aware of the Judgment as is evident from Annexure - 1, they could have even at that stage, sought for review of the Order on the ground that it was not clear as to whether the trial Court had taken recourse of service of notice. They did nothing and now, it is too late in the day when, they cannot be allowed to frustrate the right of the Petitioner which he has perfected on the basis of the Judgment of a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. 11. This Court is therefore clearly of the opinion that perhaps the Circle Officer wants to overstep his jurisdiction and wants to travel in areas forbidden by Law. 12. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court therefore issues a writ of mandamus upon the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella - Kharsawan to immediately and forthwith verify the records of the Petitioner in relation to the Judgment passed in Title Suit No. 54/1987 which, for all practical purposes has become binding. If the records are in favour of the Petitioner, then a writ of mandamus is further issued directing the Respondent authorities not to make the Petitioner a subject of harassment at the hands of petty officers like the Circle Officer. The Deputy Commissioner will ensure that such acts are not repeated in future. He will also issue necessary directions upon the Circle Officer and all other subordinate staff that they must be very careful when they are swearing a counter-affidavit because statements made by the Circle Officer in paragraph - 6 of his Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 17.8.2004 amounts to casting aspersions on the trial Court. This Court would have proceeded to deal with the issue very severely with the deponent namely, Asim Kispotta, but leaves the matter to the Depuly Commissioner to deal with him in such manner as he deems fit so that the majesty of the rule of Law and dignity of Courts are not allowed to be encroached by such irresponsible Circle Officers, who make statements without understanding their implications. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. Petition disposed off.