Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 701 (JHR)

Shishir Kumar Chakravarty v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-06-14

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2006
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Acting C.J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction on the respondents to issue rent receipt in their favour. According to them, the land, in question, pertaining to Plot No. 1264 under Khata No. 59 in Mauza- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, belongs to them. The premises, which consisted of a "Khaparposh" house and boundary, was recorded in the name of their father, late Gyanendra Nath Chakravarty, in the Municipal Survey records of rights. After death of their father, the petitioners applied for mutation of their names and, accordingly, vide order dated 15th March, 1978 the land, in question, was recorded in their names. 2. In pursuance of Mutation Case No. 1349 of 1977-78, name of first petitioner, Shishir Kumar Chakravarty was mutated in Register-II in respect of 14 Kattha and 3 Chhatak of land and correction slip was issued accordingly. Thereafter, he paid rent regularly up to the year, 1995-96 and was granted rent receipts. 3. Similarly, in pursuance of the order dated 15th March, 1978, passed in Mutation Case No. 1349 of 1977-78, name of second petitioner, Anil Prakash Chakravarty, was mutated in Register-II in respect of his share i.e. 14 Kattha and 3 Chhatak and correction slip was issued accordingly. Thereafter, he also paid rent up to the year 1995-96 and obtained rent receipts. 4. Likewise in pursuance of the order dated 15th March, 1978, passed in Mutation Case No. 1350 of 1977-78, name of third petitioner, Arun Prakash Chakravarty, was also mutated in Register-II in respect of his share i.e. 14 Kattha and 2 Chhatak and correction slip was issued accordingly. Thereafter, he also paid rent up to the year 1995-96 and obtained rent receipts. 5. These petitioners also got their names entered and mutated with the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and paid taxes up to the year 2002-03. 6. Their grievance is that the respondents inspite of the requests have not issued rent receipts, as they are not accepting the rent, and in absence of such rent receipts, the petitioners are not in a position to get the plan sanctioned from Ranchi Regional Development Authority nor they are In a position to take loan from the Bank for alteration and construction of the building over their respective shares within the premises, in question. 7. 7. According to the respondents, the land, pertaining to M.S. Plot No. 1264 and 1263, corresponding to Khas Mahal Plot No. 154 and 149 Mouza- Lalpur, having total area of 1.523 Kari, is Khas Mahal lease land. The original lessee of the land, in question, was Jnanendra Nath Chakraborty son of Babu Braj Nath Chakravorty. After the death of the original lessee, the land, in question, was renewed in the names of his sons, namely, Jyoti Prakash Chakravorty, Anil Prakash Chakravorty and Shishir Kumar Chakravorty for thirty years i.e. from 1st April, 1966 to 31st March, 1996 vide Case No. 31 of 1968-69, as is apparent from the lease deed No. 8602 dated 9th October, 1971. Thus, the lease period having already expired on 31st March, 1996, as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the petitioners have been granted receipts up to 31st March, 1996 or 1995-96. The renewal of the said lease with effect from 1st April, 1996 for further period has not yet been done and, as such, no receipt has been granted after 1995-96. 8. It is a settled law that mutation of name/creation of Jamabandi does not create any right or title in favour of one or other nor cancellation of mutation/Jamabandi extinguishes right and title of the genuine owner. It is only the person, who is in possession, his name is recorded in Register-II and rent is accepted by the State. 9. In the present case, the names of the petitioners have already been mutated, as discussed above and not disputed by the respondents. As such, they can not refuse to accept the rent in pursuance of such mutation on the ground that the lease period has expired on 31st March, 1996 and has not yet been extended. 10. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents, including the concerned Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, are directed to accept the rent, as may be deposited by one or other petitioner and to grant rent receipt(s) within one week from the date of receipt of rent. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to act in accordance with law nor it will stand in the way of the petitioners to dispute the nature of the land i.e. the land, in question, is not a Khas Mahal land. 11. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to act in accordance with law nor it will stand in the way of the petitioners to dispute the nature of the land i.e. the land, in question, is not a Khas Mahal land. 11. The writ petition is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.