Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 904 (JHR)

Md. Sadrul v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-28

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order Aggrieved by inaction on the part of the Circle Officer, Gamharia in not creating Jamabandi (Mutation) in favour of Jai Raj Singh Deo, the petitioners who are constituted attorney of Jai Raj Singh Deo, have filed the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Jai Raj Singh Deo is the son of Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo who received land appertaining to Khata No. 24 (old), Plot No. 1/A and 7/A (old) admeasuring three bighas through registered gift deed dated 16.11.1962 from Raja Aditya Pratap Singh Deo, the ruler of Seraikella Estate. Raja Aditya Pratap Singh Deo had 3 sons. Jai Raj Singh Deo is the grandson of Raja of Seraikella being the son of Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo. Initially, Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo applied for jamabandi in his name vide Mutation Case No. 33 of 1966-67 however, no order was passed by the Circle Officer. In the meantime, the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 came into operation. In respect of 20 bighas of land purchased from Raja of Seraikella, several proceedings were initiated and Title Suit no. 48 of 1998 was filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge-I, Seraikella. The said Suit was decreed vide judgment dated 24.03.2001 in which the learned Subordinate Judge-I has recorded as under:- “Moreover the Dy. Secretary of housing board and Chief Town Planner had accepted the disputed land before the settlement officer as a private property of Raja to which the Raja of Seraikella had transferred. After finding those facts settlement officer Singhbhum in said Tanaza Case accepted the title and possession of the purchasers from the Raja of Seraikella and ordered to make entry in the revenue record in the name of purchasers. So it is crystal clear that after vesting of zamindari Seraikella Raja was given 30 bighas of land by the Central Government for the residential purpose of family of Raja at Adityapur and Raja of Seraikella accepted it and S.D.O. Seraikella finally demarcated the 30 bighas of land including 2 acres 51 decimals of disputed plot no. 102 and 30 bighas of land was given vide Bharat Sarkar Patrank No. 16/3/55 page 111 dated 30.04.56 and Raja came over possession of those 30 bighas land.” 3. 102 and 30 bighas of land was given vide Bharat Sarkar Patrank No. 16/3/55 page 111 dated 30.04.56 and Raja came over possession of those 30 bighas land.” 3. The father of the Jai Raj Sing Deo died in the year, 1992 and thus he succeeded and inherited the entire land gifted to his father by his grandfather, Raja of Seraikella. The petitioners approached the Circle Officer on various dates and gave reminders however, no order has been passed with respect to jamabandi of the land comprising of 3 bighas land, being New Khata No. 256, Plot No. 243, 245, 246, 253, 255, 256 & 257 of Mauza Adityapur, District Seraikella, Kharsawan. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 stating that no specific detail of the property recognized as private property of Raja of Seraikella at the time of merger, has been given in the writ petition. It is denied that Raja of Seraikella has 3 sons rather, he had 4 sons namely, Tikayet Nrupendra Narayan Singh Deo, Patayat Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo, Subhendra Narayan Singh Deo and Sudhendtra Narayan Singh Deo. It is further stated that the claimant did not take any step in the matter after 1966-67 and if at all the claimant was aggrieved due to inaction on the part of the respondents he should have approached the higher authority or filed a suit, which he has not done. On these grounds, the prayer in the writ petition is resisted. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the State-respondents are not justified in not taking action in the matter. The petitioners who are constituted attorney of Jai Raj Singh Deo had approached this Court aggrieved by inaction on the part of the State-respondents. It is further submitted that the State-respondents are bound to pass order on the application for creating jamabandi of the property in question. 7. Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the petitioners are required to prefer application in terms of the new Act and since no such application has been filed, the Circle Officer has rightly not taken cognizance of the same. 7. Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the petitioners are required to prefer application in terms of the new Act and since no such application has been filed, the Circle Officer has rightly not taken cognizance of the same. It is further submitted that inaction on the part of the claimant makes the prayer made in the present writ petition suspicious. It is further submitted that the demarcation of 30 bighas of land as private property of the Ex-Raja of Saraikella is entirely a different issue from the mutation sought by the claimant. 8. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. As noticed above, in Title Suit No. 48 of 1998 a finding has been recorded with respect to title and possession of 20 bighas of land which was purchased by different persons from Raja of Seraikella. On the basis of the claim of Jai Raj Singh Deo that about 3 acres of land was transferred in the name of his father namely, Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo vide Gift Deed registered on 16.11.1962 the petitioners, the constituted attorney of Jai Raj Singh Deo have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for creating jamabandi in the name of Jai Raj Singh Deo. Such a direction cannot be issued by the writ Court because the matter involves adjudication of right, title and interest of the claimant in the property in question. However, the authorities without any reason cannot refuse to decide the application for mutation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an application has already been filed by the petitioners on behalf of the claimant namely, Jai Raj Singh Deo however, the learned counsel for the respondent the State of Jharkhand has submitted that it does not appear from the record of the case that any such application under the provision of the new Act has been preferred by the claimant. Be that as it may, the petitioners are at liberty to move an appropriate application and if such an application is preferred, after conducting necessary enquiry in the matter, the authority would pass appropriate order, in accordance with law within a period of six months from such application is moved. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, I.A. No.631 of 2014 also stands disposed of.