Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1246 (JHR)

Nand Kishore Lal v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-23

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER Both the cases, since arising out of the same case, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It is the case of the complainant that out of 4.15 acres of land of Mauza Moriyawan appertaining to Plot no.1246, Khata no.1 under Thana no.2 the mother and father of the complainant purchased 2.78 and ½ acres of land through a registered sale deed in the year 1966. Since then, the complainant and his ancestors were coming in continuing cultivating possession over it. Subsequently, the complainant also acquired 1.02 acres of land through registered sale deed but the accused persons in connivance with the land Mafia created a wrong Jamabandi. When complainant came to know about it, he filed an application under RTI Act whereby information was given on 26.3.2009 that the land of Khata No.1, area 2 acres has been entered in Register-II at page no.70/7 in the name of Most. Khedni Kumhain and rent receipts for the period from 5.11.1990 to 2007-08 have been issued in her name. It was also informed that in the remarks column of Register-II it has been recorded that this has been brought from page 194/F but there is no signature of the competent officer and that the said page is missing. 3. Further case is that when the land Mafia started fencing the land of the complainant, the complainant gave information about this to all senior officers but the complainant was abused and threatened by the officers concerned. 4. On the said allegation, a Complaint Case no.285 of 2010 was registered, upon which cognizance of he offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners after recording that total area of the land of Khata No.1, Plot No.1246 is 4.15 acres out of which, legal heirs of Chito Kumhar and Most. Khedni Kumhain had already sold 4 acres of the land, still Jamabandi with respect to 4.15 acres of plot no.1246 is running in the name of Chito Kumhar and further Jamabandi with respect to 2 acres of the land has been created in the name of Most. Khedni Kumhain when there is a total area of the land is 4.15 acres. 5. Khedni Kumhain when there is a total area of the land is 4.15 acres. 5. The order taking cognizance has been sought to be quashed by the petitioners of Cr.M.P.No.1679 of 2011, who at the relevant point of time held office as Circle Officer, Assistant at the office of Circle Officer and Halka Kramchari and also by the petitioners of Cr.M.P.No.42 of 2012 who have been deputed as Circle Officer and Revenue Karmchari. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners of Cr. M.P.No.1679 of 2011 that the petitioner no.1 was posted as Circle Officer, Koderma from 17.7.2007 to 2.8.2010 whereas petitioner no.2 was posted as Office Assistant in Circle Officer, Koderma from 22.2.2007 to 5.9.2010 and the petitioner no.3 was posted as Halka Kramchari in Koderma circle and that it was the petitioner no.1, who on filing application by the complainant initiated a proceeding for challenging of Jamabandi in Misc. Case No.29 of 2008-09, vide its order dated 5.2.2009 when it appears to him that Jamabandi to be suspicious. Subsequently, when the report was submitted by Halka Kramchari/Circle Inspector and the parties submitted their documents, the land in question was found to have been recorded Gairmajrua Khas in Survey Khatian, still 2 acres of land was entered in Register-II in the name of Most. Khedni Kumhain, wife of Chito Kumhar in whose name rent receipt has been issued from 1990-91 to 2007-08. 7. It was further found that said entry was brought from page 194/I but the said page was not available in Register-II. Under the circumstances, it was observed by the petitioner no.1, vide order dated 24.4.2005 that the Jamabandi appears to be suspicious and therefore, record was sent to the office of the Deputy Collector land Reforms, Koderma. On the said report, a proceeding had been initiated by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Koderma, vide its order dated 7.7.2009 where the matter is still pending. In such situation, when rent receipts had been issued from 1990—91 on the basis of Jamabandi which has been found by the petitioner no.1 to be suspicious and as such, matter was referred to higher officer for cancellation of Jamabandi, any allegation made against the petitioners of making manipulation in the Jamabandi appears tobe absurd and improbable. 8. The same plea has been taken by the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.42 of 2012. 9. 8. The same plea has been taken by the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.42 of 2012. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the court below on the facts of the case took cognizance of the offences after finding that some forgery has been made with respect to entry made in the Jamabandi and hence, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 10. Thus, from the facts stated above and also from the submissions, it does appear that it was the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P.No.1679 of 2011, who having raised suspicion over the Jamabandi created in the name of Most Khedni Kumhain, referred the matter before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms for cancellation of Jamabandi before the complaint was lodged. While referring the matter for cancellation, it was also noted that rent receipts are being issued in the name of Most. Khedni Kumhain from 1990-91 itself on the basis of Jamabandi. 11. In such situation, it appears to be quite improbable that the petitioners, who were posted either from 2007 or 2009 did commit act of forgery. 12. Under the circumstances, the order dated 22.9.2011 taking cognizance is hereby quashed so far the petitioners are concerned. 13. In the result, both the applications are allowed. Applications allowed.