Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 239 (JHR)

Damodar Chandra Jew Digar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-24

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
Order This writ petition was filed for restraining the respondents from interfering with the title and possession of the petitioner. By amendment application (I.A. No. 2262 of 2010) the order dated 15.4.2010, passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, in Misc. Petition Case No. 5/2009 has also been challenged. 2. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows. The petitioner is a private Religious Endowment created by ex-landlord Purnendu Narayan Singh by registered deed no. 6954 dated 13.9.1947 and it is being managed by its Sebayat Sri Chandra Nath Singh, the eldest son of the said ex-landlord, through whom this writ petition has been filed. An Annulment proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar lands Reforms Act, 1950 (BLR Act) for annulling the said deed, being Annulment Case No. 31/73-74 was started. After due enquiry and recording evidence, the said case was disposed of by order dated 11.7.1978. The Collector found the Trust to be genuine and recommended for seeking approval of the Government for increase in the annuity amount to Rs.7500/- per year. Under mistaken advise the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was registered as SRA Case No. 1/ 1978 in the Court of District Magistrate, Dhanbad, who dismissed the appeal. Mr. Chandranath Singh (Petitioner) filed a writ petition, being WPC No. 6021/ 2008, against the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for removal of encroachments claiming ownership of the property in question. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8.10.2009, remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for passing order on the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and till the decision was taken, the Deputy Commissioner was restrained from demolishing the structure on the property. Pursuant to the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 15.4.2010 (Annexure-9 to the amendment petition). As the petitioner is the owner of the property in question, the orders passed for payment of annuity were wrong. As the Trust deed was found genuine, there was no occasion for sending the matter to the Government for confirmation under Section 21 of the BLR Act. He relied on (1996)5 SCC 499 Upendra Narain Singh etc., 1978 BBCJ IV-489-The Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. Etc., 1990(1) PLJR 165 Sri Rama Prasad Singh etc. and 2002(2) BBCJ V375 Shyam Bihari Prasad etc. 3. Mr. He relied on (1996)5 SCC 499 Upendra Narain Singh etc., 1978 BBCJ IV-489-The Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. Etc., 1990(1) PLJR 165 Sri Rama Prasad Singh etc. and 2002(2) BBCJ V375 Shyam Bihari Prasad etc. 3. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted as follows. The Trust deed in question, did not confer ownership and it appears that only an arrangement was made for the purpose of meeting the expenses of service and puja of the deities from the income of the property. This forged and fabricated deed was prepared on 13.9.2007 to defeat the provisions of BLR Act after the lands vested in the Government w.e.f. 1.1.1946. The eldest son of the ex-landlord (Chandra Nath Singh, Petitioner) was made the Sebayat. Even in the Trust deed it is mentioned that the Sebayat will have no right to transfer the property in any manner whatsoever, which also shows that the ownership of the land was not transferred. In the said order dated 11.7.1978 itself, the Collector clearly found and held that the Trust property vested in the Government under BLR Act. At best the petitioner was held entitled to annuity, which was increased and recommendation was made for approval of the amount by the Government. The Collector also considered the earner decision dated 10.8.1963 passed by the then land Reforms Deputy Collector. The Collector ultimately recommended for increasing the amount of annuity and clearly held that the property belongs to' the Government. The petitioner filed appeal only for enhancement of the annuity amount, and he did not challenge that part of the order by which it was held that the property vested and belongs to the Government. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 3.2.1982. The said orders passed on 11.7.1978 and 3.2.1982, became final between the parties and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take 'U' turn claiming ownership over the property after about 30 years. The lands in question are the Government land and the State Government has been in possession thereof where a Government Office, Market and Park are being constructed. The land in question is vast land of about 68 acres. Encroachments were removed on 9.12.2008. The lands in question are the Government land and the State Government has been in possession thereof where a Government Office, Market and Park are being constructed. The land in question is vast land of about 68 acres. Encroachments were removed on 9.12.2008. One Milkman Dadan Yadav, holding 'Khatal' over part of the land in question, filed a suit and prayed for injunction but the same was refused up to the Appellate Court. (Annexure-"D). 4. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the State. After the remand by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner considered the respective cases of the parties in detail and rightly held that the land, in question, belongs to the Government and the Trust is only entitled b annuity. The deed of Trust relied by the petitioner (Annexure-10) itself shows that the ownership was not transferred. No right was given to transfer the land in question, in any manner. Only an arrangement was made for meeting the expenses of the service and puja of the deities from the income of the properties. It is surprising that such Trust was created after the land, in question, stood vested in the State Government. The eldest son of the exlandlord was made Sebayat. The eldest sons of the Sebayats were to continue as Sebayats. There were proceeding with regard to land in question, in which order was passed on 10.8.1963 by the Revenue Authorities recommending fixing annuity only. .In Annulment Case no. 31/73-74, also it was• held by order dated 11.7.1978 that the land, in question, stood vested in the State Government. However, the Trust was not interfered and recommendation was made for increasing the annuity amount. The petitioner filed appeal only with respect to enhancement of the annuity amount. The finding that the lands vested in the State Government was not challenged. The appeal was dismissed on 3.2.1982. These orders became final. Now after about 30 years, when the encroachments over the land in question was sought to be removed by the respondents, the petitioner took a 'U' turn and started claiming ownership over the property in question. Now it is said on behalf of the petitioner that the order fixing annuity was unwarranted arid under misconception, the appeal was tiled only for enhancement of annuity. Such contentions are wholly unacceptable. Now it is said on behalf of the petitioner that the order fixing annuity was unwarranted arid under misconception, the appeal was tiled only for enhancement of annuity. Such contentions are wholly unacceptable. It has to be held that it was rightly held by the Revenue Authorities, repeatedly that the land, in question, stood vested in the State Government and the petitioner accepted this position for 3-4 decades. The judgments relied by Mr. Sahay, are not at all applicable in this case. 5. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. 6. The land in question, is a vast piece of land, i.e. about 68 acres and it is being used for public purposes by the State Government. The respondents are directed to remove the encroachments, if any left, and proceed with the construction work without any delay. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, no costs.