Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1475 (JHR)

Surendra Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-19

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M. R. Case No. 205 of 1987-88 filed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, whereby the respondent no. 2 allowed the revision, setting aside the order dated 07.09.1987 passed by the respondent no. 3 – Additional Collector, Deoghar, with a direction to the respondent no. 4 – Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar, to decide the case afresh after adopting the required procedure under the provisions of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Budhu Rai and Most. Dewani Ghatwalin were the recorded tenants of J.B. No. 53, MouzaMorne, P.S.Mohanpur. Donor Raj Kishore Rai, Churaman Rai and Munsi Rai were the sons of one of the recorded tenant Most. Dewani Ghatwalin. As per the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the donors Raj Keshar Rai, Churaman Rai and Munsi Rai donated 5.73 acres of land of J.B. No. 53 to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee through Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra dated 23.03.1966 (Annexure1 to the writ petition) and the Bhoodan Yagna Committee settled the said land in favour of Ram Keshwar Rai, Nageshwar Rai, Jugnu Rai and Ram Shankar Rai. It is further submitted that on perusal of the order dated 26.03.1977 passed by the Revenue Officer in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73 (Annexure2 to the writ petition), it would appear that the Danpatra was not objected by any one and thus, the same was confirmed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar. The said fact indicates that the concerned authority has already complied with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It is also submitted that the father of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 namely, Kaleshwar Rai filed an appeal being Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 before the Additional Collector, Deoghar challenging the order dated 26.03.1977 passed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar, in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73 (Annexure3 to the writ petition). The Additional Collector, Deoghar vide order dated 07.09.1987 rejected the Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 on the grounds that the said appeal was barred by limitation and the dispute related to the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Additional Collector, Deoghar vide order dated 07.09.1987 rejected the Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 on the grounds that the said appeal was barred by limitation and the dispute related to the jurisdiction of the civil court. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.09.1987 passed by the Additional Collector, Deoghar in Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86, preferred revision being R.M.R. No. 205 of 1987-88 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and the learned Commissioner allowed the revision application vide order dated 26.12.2006 and directed the Revenue Officer to decide the case afresh after adopting essential procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Commissioner committed serious error in holding that Churaman Rai did not sign the Danpatra. However, on perusal of the said Danpatra (Annexure1 to the writ petition), it would be evident that said Churaman Rai signed the Danpatra. The learned Commissioner further committed error in holding that the Danpatra was not published, but from perusal of the order dated 26.03.1977 passed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73, it would be evident that no one had filed any objection in that regard. The said fact goes to show that there was proper publication of the Danpatra under Section 11 of the Act. It is also submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the donor had given names of four persons in the Danpatra for the settlement, but from perusal of the Danpatra, it transpires that the donor had not given any name for settlement. In view of the said facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R No. 205 of 1987-88 being erroneous, is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 is legal, which has been passed in accordance with law and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The respondent no. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 is legal, which has been passed in accordance with law and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The respondent no. 2, after hearing both the sides, has made detailed observation in the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 holding inter alia that the procedure of law has not been followed in terms of the Act and as such, the matter was remanded to the original authority to decide the issue afresh. It is further submitted that the genealogy described in paragraph no. 4(i) of the writ petition goes to show that the property in question which has been donated under the provisions of the Act was a joint family property and, therefore, the owners have indeed been deprived of their rights. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act is applicable in the facts of the present case which stipulates that the donation of the land in respect of which the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra is superseded, shall be cancelled and the right, title and interest of any person in such land before the date of the Yagna Danpatra shall not be affected in any manner. It is further submitted that there has been no adherence to Rule 3 to 6 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Rules, 1955 in the present case. Considering the said fact, the respondent no. 2 has rightly remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer, Deoghar for fresh consideration of the matter. 5. The learned counsel for the State while relying on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 also submits that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 in the revision being R.M.R Case No. 205 of 1987-88 is completely legal and the same needs no interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the father of respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 before the Additional Collector, Deoghar challenging the order dated 26.03.1977 passed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the father of respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed Bhoodan Appeal No. 6A of 1985-86 before the Additional Collector, Deoghar challenging the order dated 26.03.1977 passed by the Revenue Officer, Deoghar in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-73. The Additional Collector, Deoghar vide order dated 07.09.1987 rejected the said Bhoodan Appeal primarily on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation and the dispute relates to the jurisdiction of the civil court. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.09.1987 passed by the Additional Collector, Deoghar, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 preferred revision being R.M.R No. 205 of 1987-88 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, who after hearing the matter vide impugned order dated 26.12.2006 setaside the order dated 26.03.1977 passed in Bhoodan Case No. 2 of 1972-77 and remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer, Deoghar to decide the matter afresh. On careful perusal of the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2, it appears that on detailed examination of the factual as well as the legal issues raised by the parties, the respondent no. 2 reached the following conclusion: (1) The land in question was recorded in last survey in the names of Budhu Rai and Masomat Dewani Ghatwalin. The KC's report in this regard reveals that Budhu Rai died issueless but masomat Dewani had three sons Raj Keshwar Rai, Karman Rai and Churaman Rai. The donation, if any, had to be made by all three because the jamabandi was joint but the alleged danpatra was signed by Raj Keshwar Rai and Karman's son Munshi Rai only. Churaman Rai did not sign the danpatra which described donation of the entire jamabandi land. This should have attracted the attention of the revenue officer authorised under the Bhoodan Act in determining the genuineness of the title of the donors. (2) The donor of the land had donated the land on 23.03.1966 for giving the land to 4 persons named by the donor on the danpatra itself. Obviously the danpatra was not to the Bhoodan Committee for deciding the settlement thereof by the committee after confirmation which is the procedure laid down in the Bhoodan Act. (2) The donor of the land had donated the land on 23.03.1966 for giving the land to 4 persons named by the donor on the danpatra itself. Obviously the danpatra was not to the Bhoodan Committee for deciding the settlement thereof by the committee after confirmation which is the procedure laid down in the Bhoodan Act. (3) The Bhoodan Committee settled the land donated on 20.07.1966 before the prayer for confirmation was filed before the L.R.D.C. in the year 1972-73 after 4 years of the donation. (4) There is not a chit of paper to prove that the danpatra was ever published in the prescribed manner inviting written objection as envisaged u/s 11 of the Act. The case record of confirmation before the L.R.D.C. does not contain any such publication nor the order-sheet mentioned that such publication was made. Obviously no objection was invited and the parties were not heard and result was no summary enquiry as to right, title and interest of the donor and his competency to make the gift was made by the Revenue Officer which is mandatory as per provision under subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. (5) The case record of the confirmation does not reveal that provision enshrined in subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Act was adhered to by the Revenue Officer. Because the danpatra was not published u/s 11(1) no opportunity could be made available to any interested party like the petitioner of the instant case to file any written objection the result of which was that the procedure laid down under subsection (3) of the Section was completely missing. (6) There is an undated order sheet in the confirmation case record of 2/72-73 in which the Anchal Adhikari has recommended that because one of three sharers of the land had not signed the danpatra and because they belonged to another Anchal area named Jasidih P.S., hence, notice from sub-divisional level may be issued to ascertain the genuineness of the danpatra still the revenue officer did not act and suddenly jumped on 26.03.1977 to confirm the donation. The Revenue Officer was in haste only to confirm the donation without following the procedure and examining the matter required by law. The Revenue Officer was in haste only to confirm the donation without following the procedure and examining the matter required by law. (7) The settlement by the Bhoodan Committee to the O.P. was in result without jurisdiction because no confirmation of donation had been made before the settlement and as the donated land had not vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee u/s 13 of the Bhoodan Act, hence, the Committee was not legally competent to grant the land u/s 14 of the Act.” 7. On perusal of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the respondent no. 2, I find that the revisional authority has carefully gone into all the relevant factual as well as the legal aspect involved in the present dispute and, thus, in my considered opinion, he has rightly remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer, Deoghar for de novo consideration of the issue and, thus, I find no error in the impugned order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 in R.M.R Case No. 205 of 1987-88. 8. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.