Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1068 (JHR)

Bablu Bhakat v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-21

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
Judgment The grievance, which has been raised in this application, is that the part of the land to the extent of 82 decimals, out of 2.13 acres of Plot No.354 and also part of the land measuring 16 decimals, out of 33 decimals of Plot No.660, though belonging to the petitioner is being handed over by the State Government to Maithan Power Limited, on whose behalf other lands are being acquired, under the Land Acquisition Act, for the construction of the railway line, without taking recourse of acquisition and payment of the compensation to the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that Deochand Bhagat, the Grand Father of the petitioner, who and other co-sharers were the Khewatdars of the land, appertaining to Mouza No.106 Khata No.41, Plot No.354 measuring an area 2.13 acres and also to the land appertaining to Mouza No.106, Khata No.41, Plot No.660 measuring an area 33 decimals, situated at village Pakthoria. The rent of the aforesaid Gair Awad Malik Land was fixed in the name of Deochand Bhagat under Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act vide Case No.2543/57-58. Subsequently, on the basis of M form, Jamabandi No.7 was created in the name of Deochand Bhagat in the year 1961 and since then rent is being paid. 3. Further case is that during survey of the land of the district Dhanbad, the land in question was recorded as Government Land and hence, a case was filed under Section 89 of the C.N.T. Act, wherein an order was passed on 31.01.1997, for recording the name of Deochand Bhagat against the land, appertaining to Plot Nos.354 and 660. 4. Subsequently, the Circle Officer, vide its report (Annexure-9), made recommendation for giving “Land Owner Certificate” as the land in question, is recorded in Jamabandi No.7 of Register No.2 in the name Deochand Bhagat against which, the rent is being paid. It is also the case that the rent was paid up to the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 5. 4. Subsequently, the Circle Officer, vide its report (Annexure-9), made recommendation for giving “Land Owner Certificate” as the land in question, is recorded in Jamabandi No.7 of Register No.2 in the name Deochand Bhagat against which, the rent is being paid. It is also the case that the rent was paid up to the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 5. In course of time, a Notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of the land of the said Mouza, but the lands of the aforesaid Plots were not included for the reason that the Government took it Gairmazarua land though it belongs to the petitioner and thereby, it was excluded from the said notification, for giving it without acquiring to Maithan Power Ltd. (respondent No.6), who under the joint venture with DVC and Tata Powers, would be constructing a railway line. 6. Being aggrieved with that, this writ application has been filed. 7. The case of the respondent No.6-Chief Executive Officer and Land Acquisition Officer of Maithan Power Ltd., as has been made out in the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit, is that the petitioner has claimed that the land in question belonged to Deochand Bhagat, the Grand Father of the petitioner and then it was devolved to late Motilal Bhagat (father of the petitioner), but thereafter, how the land has been devolved to the petitioner as his exclusive property, it has not been given and that whatever the documents, in support of the case, have been filed, those never relates to right, title and interest, rather those documents were either the orders passed by the Land Revenue Authority or the rent receipts issued in the name of the Deochand Bhagat and that the petitioner has himself came with the case that the land in the year 1996 was recorded as Government Land, which is still a Government Land and, therefore, when the Notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, the land in question was never included in the said notification as the land in question, belongs to the State Government and in that event, it can be said that the petitioner is intending to get the question of right, title and interest over the land in question adjudicated, which is beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction. 8. 8. It was submitted that though the petitioner initially claimed that the land in question exclusively belongs to the petitioner, but the petitioner has himself deviated from that stand, as subsequently in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.6, it has been stated in paragraphs-6 and 21, that plot in question is the exclusive property of the petitioner and his family members and that the Plot No. 354 has been converted into the Plot No.668 and the final Parcha has been given in the name of Satya Narain Bhagat and others, who are the family members of the present petitioner. Similarly, in para-45, statement has been made that the plot in question is the raiyati land of the petitioner and his family members. Thus, it was submitted that it is evident that the land in question never belongs to the petitioner exclusively, rather it stands in the name of the petitioner and his family members, but the family members have not joined as a party. Therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is fit to be set aside. 9. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that from the Khatiyan of Khata No.41 of Plot Nos.660 and 354 of Village Pakthoria, it would be evident that the lands had been recorded in the Cadastral Survey as Government Land. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the lands appertaining to Mouza No.106 Khata No.41, Plot No.354 measuring an area 2.13 acres and also appertaining to Mouza No.106, Khata No.41, Plot No.660 measuring an area 33 decimals situated at village Pakthoria had been recorded in the Cadastral Survey as Government Land. 11. However, in course of time, rent of the said land was fixed in the name of Deochand Bhagat under Sections 5,6 & 7 of the Land Reforms Act vide Case No. 2543/57-58. Subsequently, on the basis of M Form, Jamabandi No.7 was created in the year 1961 in the name of the Grand of Father of the petitioner. 11. However, in course of time, rent of the said land was fixed in the name of Deochand Bhagat under Sections 5,6 & 7 of the Land Reforms Act vide Case No. 2543/57-58. Subsequently, on the basis of M Form, Jamabandi No.7 was created in the year 1961 in the name of the Grand of Father of the petitioner. It further appears during survey operation of the district of Dhanbad that the land in question was recorded as government land and hence, a case was lodged under Section 89 of the C.N.T. Act wherein an order was passed on 31.01.1997 for recording the name of the petitioner and others against the land bearing Plot No.354 (new 688) whereas the land of Plot No.660 (new 783) was ordered to be recorded in the name of government existing from before. 12. Similarly, from the order dated 04.06.2009, as annexed as Annexure-R/J to the reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5, it is evident that the land of Plot No.660 (old) corresponding to new Plot No.783, has been ordered to be recorded in the name of the petitioner and others and, therefore, it is quite evident that the land in question never exclusively belong to the petitioner. 13. In that event statement has been made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 to the effect that the land situated over Plot Nos.354 and 660 over Mouza Pakthoria, Mouza No.106, Khata No.41 is the exclusive property of the petitioner and his family. Again in paragraph-21 of the rejoinder, it has been stated that as follows:- “That moreover, now plot no.354 has been converted into plot no.668 and the final parcha has also been given in the name of Satya Narain Bhagat and others who are the family members of the present petitioner”. 14. Furthermore, not a single document filed in this case on behalf of the petitioner, pertains to right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land. However, rent receipts, orders passed by the Revenue Authority have been annexed, but those documents cannot be taken to be the documents of right, title and interest and, therefore, when the dispute has been raised on behalf of the State that the petitioner has not been rightful owner over the land, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 15. 15. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.