Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 857 (JHR)

Chanchla Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-28

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard Sri V.Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.K.Lal, S.C.(L&C) for the respondent State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is against the order dated 03.09.2006 (Annexure-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 20.07.2002 (Annexure-2) passed by the L.R.D.C. whereby the Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled. 3. The petitioner’s claim is in respect of the land pertaining to R.S. Khata No. 194, Plot No. 3683 measuring 20 decimals at Village Simalis, Thana No. 139, district Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that after considering the fact that the land which was originally recorded as Gair Majurwa Khas in the name of ex landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo in the Revisional Survey records of rights and the said landlord had settled 12 acres of land in favour of one Rang Nath Sahu who, in turn, had sold a total area of 41.99 decimals, out of which, 20 decimals were sold to the petitioner and the remaining in the name of the petitioner's husband and had mutated the name of the petitioner and accordingly, rent receipts used to be given to the petitioner. However, it appears that on the basis of some frivolous complaint, a proceeding was initiated at the level of the Circle Officer for cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner. It is submitted further that against similar order of cancellation, the petitioner's husband had moved this Court by filing a writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007. The same writ application vide order dated 17.06.2008, was disposed of holding that the Jamabandi recorded in the name of the petitioner's husband cannot be cancelled and the Court had recorded its observation accordingly. Learned counsel explains further that the same ratio would apply to the petitioner’s present case also in view of the fact that the land in dispute in the present writ application is also part of the same land sold by the common vendor to the petitioner. Referring to the counter affidavit of the respondent State, learned counsel submits that though the respondents have tried to suggest that the State could prefer an appeal against the judgement of the Single Bench but till date no appeal has been filed. Referring to the counter affidavit of the respondent State, learned counsel submits that though the respondents have tried to suggest that the State could prefer an appeal against the judgement of the Single Bench but till date no appeal has been filed. The petitioner’s case, according to the learned counsel, is fully covered by the judgement of this Court passed in W.P.(C) 2900 of 2007. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioner has claimed to have derived the right, title and interest over the property from the vendor namely Rang Nath Sahu who claimed to be the settlee of the ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo. The claim that Rang Nath Sahu was the settlee, has itself been denied and disputed by the respondent State in absence of any supportive documents or records to confirm the same and the respondent State has neither acknowledged the claim of the petitioner that the land was settled by the ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo in favour of the said Rang Nath Sahu. As such, according to the respondents, since Rang Nath Sahu has himself no right, title and interest over the lands, he could not have legally transferred any proper right or title in favour of the petitioner and her husband which he himself would not have. 6. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the same issue as raised in the present writ application, was raised earlier in an analogous writ application filed by the husband of the petitioner in respect of the land within the same plot, claimed to have been acquired from the common vendor, and the judgement passed by a Single Bench of this Court on the issues, the ratio decided in the judgement of the Single Judge would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.09.2006 (Annexure-4) and 20.07.2002 (Annexure-2) are hereby set aside on the basis of the same ratio as applied in the Single Bench Judgement of this Court passed in the case of Dineshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (Supra). With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.