Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1054 (JHR)

Sikendar Ali @ Sheikh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-17

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order : Challenging order dated 17.11.1990 in R.M.C. No. 26 of 1988-89, order dated 28.12.1992 in R.M.A. No. 69 of 1990-91 and order dated 28.02.2006 in R.M.R. No. 08 of 1994-95, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. Claiming possession of an area of 1178 Bighas of land in village Kanchijaddipur by the petitioner and other raiyats, which was allegedly transferred in their names by the ex-landlord before vesting of Jamindari, the writ petitioner has stated that the lands situated in village Sridhar Diara were also transferred in the name of the petitioner as well as other 44 raiyats by the ex-landlords. Accordingly, they had been paying rents to the ex-landlords and Register-II was prepared in their names. The petitioner and other raiyats continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar and rent receipts were issued to them. The villages Kanchijaddipur and Sridhar Diara remained submerged under river Ganga for 10-12 years and thereafter, the respective raiyats resumed their possession. When the petitioner and other respective raiyats approached the Circle Officer in the year1987 for paying rent, the Circle Officer refused to accept the rent on the ground that the Register-II has been misplaced. Thereafter, the petitioner and other raiyats filed an application before the Deputy Collector, In-Charge, Land Reforms, Sahibganj for reconstruction of Register-II and for accepting the rent in respect of the land, which was transferred by the ex-landlord. A R.M.C. No. 26 of 1988-89 was registered on the objection filed by private respondents to the Deputy Collector, In-Charge, Land Reforms, Sahibganj and the matter was referred for enquiry to the Circle Officer. The enquiry made by the Karamchari recommended that the Register-II may be opened in the name of the petitioner and other similarly situated raiyats. The private respondents filed their objection claiming themselves to be the displaced person from Bangladesh in the year, 1971, who were granted protection by the Government of India and shifted to the aforesaid two villages. The rent receipts produced by the petitioner were alleged to be forged documents. The Deputy Collector, In-Charge, Land Reforms concluded that Register-II should be reconstructed and Jamabandi can be created in the light of the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Rajmahal. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj has erroneously passed order dated 17.11.1990. The petitioner moved the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj in R.M.A. No. 69 of 1991, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.12.1992. The Deputy Collector, In-Charge, Land Reforms concluded that Register-II should be reconstructed and Jamabandi can be created in the light of the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Rajmahal. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj has erroneously passed order dated 17.11.1990. The petitioner moved the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj in R.M.A. No. 69 of 1991, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.12.1992. The R.M.R. No. 08 of 1994-95 was also dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2006 by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 disputing the claim of the petitioner with respect to possession of the land. It is stated that thousands of refugees migrated from the then East Pakistan from 1965. Land was also acquired for Farakka Barraj Project whereas, some portion of land in question falls within Kalichak police station within District-Malda in West Bengal. The refugees have received citizenship rights and the government has constructed buildings for school, health care, panchayat bhavan etc. and about 700 refugees are residing there with their family. Though, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner and other raiyats are holding land to the extent of 1178 Bighas however, other raiyats have not come forward claiming the same. In fact, land was transferred by the ex-landlord in the name of the petitioner. No document of transfer has been produced by the petitioner in support of his claim. The land in question was submerged for long time, some portion of which reappeared in Jharkhand and some portion in West Bengal and as soon as it reappeared, it was allotted to refugees. The petitioner never came in physical possession of the land, as claimed by him and he has managed some forged rent receipts. The petitioner is not the resident or nonresident Jamabandi raiyat of mouza Kanchijaddipur. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the reconstitution and restoration of the old Jamabandi does not amount to creation of new Jamabandi and therefore, the rent receipt should be issued to the petitioner and others, whose names were mutated in Register-II. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the reconstitution and restoration of the old Jamabandi does not amount to creation of new Jamabandi and therefore, the rent receipt should be issued to the petitioner and others, whose names were mutated in Register-II. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sahibganj vide letter dated 20.08.1987 directed the Circle Officer, Rajmahal to open Register-II on the basis of rent receipts issued in the name of the petitioner and other raiyats in the year, 1962-63. The Circle Officer, Rajmahal had earlier rejected the prayer of the private respondents vide order dated 02.02.1988 and therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts, the rent receipt should have been issued in favour of the petitioner, who is in possession of the land in question. 6. Mr. V.K. Prasad, S.C. (L & C) appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the claim of the petitioner with respect to possession of the land has been found not true. It is a matter of record that hundreds of families have settled there and schools and hospitals have been constructed over there. The genuineness of the rent receipts produced by the petitioner has been doubted and therefore, the petitioner has been rightly denied issuance of rent receipts. 7. I have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not produced any document/ instrument of transfer whereby, the ex-landlord allegedly settled the land in question in favour of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj in R.M.C. No. 26 of 1988-89, after perusing the record received from the Circle Officer, ordered that the land in question cannot be settled and Jamabandi cannot be created in favour of the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the refugees have settled over a part of land and school, health center, panchayat bhavan etc. have been constructed over a portion of the land. It is also surprising that though the petitioner himself has stated that several other raiyats are also in possession of a large area of land, no other raiyat has come forward to claim the same. have been constructed over a portion of the land. It is also surprising that though the petitioner himself has stated that several other raiyats are also in possession of a large area of land, no other raiyat has come forward to claim the same. The genuineness of the rent receipts has been seriously doubted because the Circle Officer reported that no return was filed by the Jamindars. The appellate authority has held that the rent receipts submitted by the petitioner are not reliable as, those are not in his name and the rent receipts have been issued “without prejudice”. The return also does not mention either the name of the petitioner or his father. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in his order dated 28.02.2006 in R.M.R. No. 08 of 1994-95 has noticed thus: (i) The land in question though claimed to have been settled by the ex-landlord with 130 raiyats, only one person has put forward a claim. (ii) Though the petitioner claimed that rent receipt was issued to him, no copy of return submitted by the ex-landlord was placed on record. (iii) The Deputy Commissioner reported that the lands in Sridhar Diara and Kanchijaddipur are not surveyed and the rent receipts submitted by the petitioner are not reliable. In his report dated 21.11.1988 in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1987-88, the Circle Officer has reported that earlier the parties were granted yearly settlement only. 9. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana has considered the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Section 5A of the Bengal Alluviam and Dilluviam Act, 1847 and held that the petitioner has not been able to establish and identify the part of the land, which was in his possession before submergence and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was not tenable. 10. From the materials brought on record, I find that the claim of the petitioner has been declined by three forums and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. 11. This writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.