Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1621 (JHR)

Surji Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This case is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners in this writ application, have prayed for quashing the order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure-6), passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder, the Revision Application filed by the private respondents, have been allowed. 4. The main question as raised in the writ application is, whether under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holding Maintenance of Records Act, a second revision application would be maintainable? 5. The facts of the case is that the land under dispute in the present case, pertaining to Khata No. 34 measuring an area of 8.07 acres of village Koni, in the district of Hazaribagh, was recorded in the name of one Triloki Yadav. The petitioners' claim is that the raiyati land was auctioned and upon auction purchase, the ex-landlord Bato Kristo Roy granted settlement of 2 pies, equivalent to half share of the land of Khata No. 34, in favour of Mahangu Kahar and Barho Kahar, who are claimed by the petitioners to be their predecessors in interest 6. Subsequently, the settlees of the land under Khata No. 34, filed an application before the concerned authorities under section 33(A) of the CNT Act for reduction of rent. The reduction schedule was accordingly prepared, confirming that settlement was granted in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by the then landlord and thereafter, they had become raiyat under the ex-landlord in respect of the half share of the land of Khata No. 34. 7. Upon vesting of interest, rent was paid by the predecessor in interest since 1955 and was granted receipts against such payment. After more than four decades, the private respondents filed an application before the Circle Officer praying for cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioners which was long standing since 1955-56. On the report submitted, a proceeding vide Misc. Case No. 6 of 1994-95 was initiated before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, in which the petitioners, upon being served with notice, had appeared and filed their objections to the prayer for cancellation, as made by the private respondents and had also annexed relevant documents in support of their claim over the land. Case No. 6 of 1994-95 was initiated before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, in which the petitioners, upon being served with notice, had appeared and filed their objections to the prayer for cancellation, as made by the private respondents and had also annexed relevant documents in support of their claim over the land. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector , Chatra vide order dated 29.02.1996, rejected the application of the respondents holding that the respondents may seek remedy before the Civil Court. 8. The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, who by his order dated 16.1.1997, allowed the appeal by cancelling the jamabandi running in favour of the petitioners, after setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra. 9. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, a revision was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Collector, Chatra vide Miscellaneous Case No. 179 of 1997. The revision application was disposed of in favour of the petitioners 10. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision before the Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) which was registered as Revision No. 71 of 1999. The Commissioner allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 14.10.2003. 11. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2, on the ground that the same is thoroughly illegal and against the provisions of law and the is apparent error on the face of record. Learned counsel explains that after the amendment of the provisions in the Bihar Tenants Holding Maintenance of Records Act, 1983, th earlier provision of filing second revision application before the Commissioner, has been deleted and as such, no second revision application could have been filed before the Commissioner against the earlier order passed in the revision application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel refers also to further grounds, stating that the long standing jamabandi in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled by the impugned roder. 12. Counsel for the respondent State as also the private respondents, would want to argue that there is no error as far as the competence of the Appellate Authority in passing the orders on the appeal preferred before it, is concerned. Learned counsel however concede that after the amendment in the Act, no second revision application could have been filed or entertained by the Commissioner. 13. Learned counsel however concede that after the amendment in the Act, no second revision application could have been filed or entertained by the Commissioner. 13. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure-6) passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 2), is hereby quashed. 14. If any party continues to maintain any further grievance in respect of the claim of right over the disputed land, they are at liberty to seek remedy before an appropriate forum. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State.