Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1131 (JHR)

Amar Lohra v. State of Bihar

2015-09-17

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 16.08.1999 in Ranchi Settlement Appeal No. 16 of 1994, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights, about 16.26 acres land comprised in R.S. Khata No. 46, VillageAgra, P.S.Tamar, Ranchi was recorded under Khata No. 4 in the name of ancestors of the petitioners namely, Tanu Lohar and Amar Lohar. Subsequently, the petitioners came in possession over the suit land and they were paying annual rent to the exlandlord however, in the draft record of rights, during the recent survey, the petitioners' ancestral land was recorded in the name of respondent nos. 5 to 10 and therefore, the petitioners filed objection before the Assistant Settlement Officer. The said objection was allowed vide order dated 22.11.1993, against which the respondent nos. 5 to 10 preferred Ranchi Settlement Appeal No. 16 of 1994. The appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 5 to 10 has been allowed vide order dated 16.08.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, before the Assistant Settlement Officer, respondent nos. 5 to 10 did not file any document claiming their right over the land comprised in R.S. Khata No. 46 under Khewat No. 4 of village Agra and therefore, objection preferred by the petitioners was allowed. However, the appellate authority merely on the plea taken by the respondent nos. 5 to 10 that the land in question was purchased in auction sale, allowed the appeal. It is further contended that against order passed by the Settlement Officer, there is no provision for appeal under rule 74 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Rules and thus, appeal itself was not maintainable. 4. Per contra, Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 submits that the ancestor of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 purchased the land in question from the auction purchaser and after 60 years of the auction sale, the petitioners tried to challenge the execution proceeding by contending that no notice was published in the official gazette. 5. I find that the land in question was recorded in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights, is not in dispute. 5. I find that the land in question was recorded in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights, is not in dispute. The petitioners have claimed that the rent for the same was paid to the exlandlord and they paid rent after vesting in the State of Bihar. The respondent nos. 5 to 10 took plea that during the life time of Tanu Lohar and Amar Lohar who were khatiyani raiyats, Rent Suit Case No. 146/1936-37 was filed. The land in question was sold in auction sale to Prayag Sahu and Triveni Sahu and sale certificate was issued on 20.02.1937. The possession of the suit land was given to them on 10.04.1937 and since then Prayag Sahu and Triveni Sahu came in possession over the suit land. In the year, 1938, the ancestors of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 purchased the said land through registered saledeed and since then they are in possession over the same. The Authorized Officer allowed the objection filed by the petitioner. Order dated 22.11.1993 discloses that, though the Authorized Officer noticed the plea taken by the respondent nos. 5 to 10, objection preferred by the petitioners was allowed on the ground that the opposite parties failed to produce documentary evidence. Before the appellate authority, the respondent nos. 5 to 10 produced sale certificate and the entire ordersheet of the execution case as well as a copy of the writ of delivery of possession. The petitioners disputed the claim of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 before the appellate authority and produced a copy of khewat to contend that khewatdars of the land in dispute were Sri Jagarnath Sahu and others and not Sri Bhairo Dayal Sahu, as claimed by the respondent nos. 5 to 10. The appellate authority has recorded a finding that the said Bairo Dayal Sahu and others were mortgager only and khewatdar was Bhairo Dayal Sahu. The discrepancy in the date of delivery of possession was explained by the respondent nos. 5 to 10 as clerical mistake and they asserted that the date of delivery of possession was 05.05.1937. The said plea was supported by the writ of delivery of possession. The discrepancy in the date of delivery of possession was explained by the respondent nos. 5 to 10 as clerical mistake and they asserted that the date of delivery of possession was 05.05.1937. The said plea was supported by the writ of delivery of possession. In so far as, the plea challenging the execution proceeding on the ground that notices were not published in official gazette is concerned, the appellate authority held that more than 60 years after the auction sale was conducted, its legality cannot be challenged. It appears that the respondent nos. 5 to 10 admitted the possession over plot nos. 641 and 642 and they asserted before the appellate authority that they are not claiming right over the plot nos. 641 and 642. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.08.1999 in Ranchi Settlement Appeal No. 16 of 1994 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. I.A. No. 872 of 2003 also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.