Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1326 (JHR)

Ramsewak Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by order dated 06.09.2013 in Misc. Revision No. 16 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claims that he is descendant of one Devi Singh. The property in question is comprised in Plot No. 243, Khata No. 9. The petitioner filed application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh for issuance of rent receipt and a report was called from the Halka Karamchari. With the report dated 03.07.2009 submitted by the Halka Karamchari, the Circle Officer forwarded the record to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. In the proceeding of Misc. Appeal No. 02/2010, the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh rejected the prayer of the petitioner, against which Misc. Revision No. 16/2013 was filed. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh dismissed Misc. Revision No. 16/2013 and aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner. Initially, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C was initiated, which was challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 215/1983. The said revision petition has been allowed and the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 08.09.1987. The report submitted by the Halka Karamchari records the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C and Cr. Revision No. 215/1983, still the Circle Officer refused to issue rent receipt to the petitioner. 4. From the materials brought on record, it appears that the petitioner admits that the land comprised in Khata No. 9 Plot No. 243 admeasuring about 54.32 acres is the ancestral land of the petitioner. The petitioner claims half share in the said land. The opposite parties have disputed the claim of the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no decree of partition allocating half share in the land in question to the petitioner. Since the claim of the petitioner over half share in the land comprised in Khata No. 9 Plot No. 243 has been disputed by the opposite parties, the Additional Collector rightly refused to issue rent receipt to the petitioner. Previously also the petitioner made application for grant of rent receipt which was declined vide Case No. 03/2008-09. In the above facts, the revisional authority has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector. Previously also the petitioner made application for grant of rent receipt which was declined vide Case No. 03/2008-09. In the above facts, the revisional authority has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector. I am of the opinion that the revisional authority has rightly observed that the petitioner is required to get his rights adjudicated in the Civil Court. 5. I find no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed.