Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 924 (JHR)

Achal Kumar Chourasia v. State of Jharkhand

2014-09-01

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents for issuing rent receipt to the petitioner with respect to land situated at Chakradharpur. 2. The facts disclosed in the writ petition are stated thus: The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of land situated under New Khata No. 149, Plot Nos. 77, 78 & 79 admeasuring one acre, 11 decimals and 623 chatank situated in new Ward No. 16 (Old ward No. 15), recorded under New Khata No. 149, Municipal Holding Nos. 117 & 380 situated under Chakradharpur Municipality in West Singhbhum District. It is stated that the land is recorded in the Record of Rights in the name of Babu Ram Chourasia who sold the said land to Ramjatan Ram Chourasia vide registered sale deed dated 07.06.1974. The said Ramjatan Ram Chourasia sold the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 10.03.1978 to the present petitioner and the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the same. In paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition, it is stated thus: “9. That the petitioner humbly states & submits that after purchase the petitioner has applied for mutation of the said land in his name and accordingly the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the Sirista of the State, vide order passed in Mutation Case No. 106/7879.” 3. It is stated that thereafter, the rent receipts were issued to the petitioner however, after 1984 the rent was not accepted and the rent receipt was not issued to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations however, inspite of mutation ordered in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 09.09.1978, rent receipt was not issued. Finally, by order dated 21.10.1998 the Additional Collector sought a report from the Circle Officer and thereafter, rent was accepted however, the rent receipt has not been issued to the petitioner after 2004. 4. From the materials brought on record particularly order dated 21.10.1998, it appears that at the instance of the petitioner himself a direction was issued to the Circle Officer, Chakradharpur and thereafter it is claimed by the petitioner that the Circle Officer issued the rent receipt. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the land in question was wrongly recorded in the name of Babu Ram Chourasia. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the land in question was wrongly recorded in the name of Babu Ram Chourasia. The Record of Rights published in the name of Babu Ram Chourasia is not a conclusive proof of right and title over the land in question. A plea has also been taken that the said Babu Ram Chourasia has no right and title to sell lease hold land to Ramjatan Ram Chourasia without permission of the competent authority and thus, the sale deed dated 07.06.1974 is void ab initio. It is stated that the petitioner has failed to disclose how he acquired land because he has failed to furnish any documentary evidence in this regard. It is further stated that the land in question is 'Khas Mahal' land which belongs to the State and the same cannot be leased out in favour of anyone without obtaining permission of the competent authority. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 96 of 1984 (R) and various provisions under the Evidence Act and submitted that the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner is an order of the Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, it has to be presumed that such order has been passed in discharge of official duty and such order should be taken as a conclusive proof of the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the land in question. It is further submitted that it has been held by this Hon'ble Court that any wrong entry in the Record of the Right can be corrected only within a period of 5 years. In these facts, it is submitted that the action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that since the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is void ab initio, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that any wrong entry can be corrected within 5 years is untenable. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that since the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is void ab initio, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that any wrong entry can be corrected within 5 years is untenable. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to establish that the sale deed was executed with the prior permission of the competent authority as the property in question which is Khas Mahal land. In fact the petitioner has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to establish his right, title and interest over the land. 9. From the materials brought on record and the stand taken by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand in the counter-affidavit, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of any substance. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has failed to produce even the application filed before the Circle Officer for mutation in his favour. Whether any notice was issued and any objector appeared in the mutation proceeding or not, has not been brought on record. It does not appear that after order dated 21.10.1998 was passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner again approached the said authority, though the rent receipt to the petitioner is not being issued. In paragraph no. 20 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that till, 2004, rent was accepted and the rent receipt was issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has moved this Court in the year, 2012 only. No explanation has been offered by the petitioner for approaching this Court after a delay of about 8 years. The writ petition is dismissed however, it is open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy as available to him. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8847 of 2013 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.