Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 728 (JHR)

Ramji Rana v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and surviving private respondents. 2. Petitioner and private respondents are related by blood. The dispute amongst them is in relation to opening of Jamabandi. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Case no. 23 of 194445 is basis for the petitioner to contend that one Ramrath Rana acquired 3.9.15 dhurs of Jamabandi no. 7 of Mouza Sirsakalan in the capacity of Karta of the joint family. Ramrath Rana and Sagan Rana both were full brothers and by way of family arrangement, the land in question was divided in half and entered in the name of both the brothers in Register-II maintained in the Circle Office. Both parties were paying rent separately. Respondent nos. 5 to 9 are sons of Ramrath Rana whereas petitioner is the son of Late Sagan Rana. Sagan Rana died in the year 1968 and his son petitioner cultivated the land in question on payment of rent, the Rent Receipts and Water Tax Receipts are enclosed as per Annexure 1 series. There was a Mutation Case no. 7/6869 wherein petitioner was found in peaceful possession upon inquiry. The instant proceedings have been initiated at the behest of respondent nos. 5 to 9 through Miscellaneous case no. 2 of 198283 before Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Godda. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Godda has by order dated 11th January, 1984 cancelled the long running demand in the name of petitioner pertaining to lands measuring 3 bighas, 9 kathas, 15 dhurs corresponding to plot nos. 8, 9 and 54 within Jamabandi no. 7 of Mouza Sarsakala (Annexure 3). In Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal no. 1 of 198485 preferred by the petitioner, the learned Deputy Collector, Godda has set aside the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, where under the name of the petitioner was removed from the Revenue Records. The private respondent nos. 5 to 9 preferred a revision before Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being Revenue Revision no. 12/198485, which has been decided against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 10th October, 2006 setting aside the order of Deputy Collector (Annexure 5). 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that long running demand cannot be annulled by the respondent Commissioner in such manner. The order is without jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court. 4. 12/198485, which has been decided against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 10th October, 2006 setting aside the order of Deputy Collector (Annexure 5). 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that long running demand cannot be annulled by the respondent Commissioner in such manner. The order is without jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court. 4. Respondent-State has, in its counter affidavit, taken the stand that the order of learned Santhal Pargana Division,Dumka is justified. Learned Commissioner came to the opinion that petitioners had not placed any partition deed or decree in any Title Suit to claim continuance of Jamabandi in their favour over the aforesaid pieces of land. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the property was self acquired property of Ramrath Rana. This petitioner therefore cannot claim sole title and ownership of the said pieces of land. Learned counsel for the private respondents supports the order passed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms as well as Revisional Authority. He submits that the claim of the petitioner to land in question based upon partition is not tenable in view of the fact that the property was self acquired property of Ramrath Rana and could not have been partitioned with his brother, Sagan Rana. It is also asserted that petitioner has not been able to show any such partition deed to support his claim over the pieces of land and continuance of Jamabandi. The question relating to opening and continuance of Jamabandi is in the realm of dispute over title, ownership and possession of the petitioner also. Therefore, no interference should be made in the findings of Inferior Authorities in favour of private respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a question of jurisdiction of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in entertaining the revision petition as it is in teeth of the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. It is the Collector of District, who is empowered to entertain the revision petition. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that there was a partition between the parties. 7. On consideration of the facts noted herein above and the submission of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the question relating to mutation or Jamabandi cannot be divorced from the issue relating to claim of ownership, title and possession of the property by the respective parties . 7. On consideration of the facts noted herein above and the submission of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the question relating to mutation or Jamabandi cannot be divorced from the issue relating to claim of ownership, title and possession of the property by the respective parties . The Inferior Authorities in one or the other orders have also observed that there is no partition deed or decree of a title suit confirming the claim of title and ownership over the pieces of land by the petitioner. No such document has either been brought on record in the present writ application. In that case, since the issue relating to mutation cannot be divorced from the larger issue of title, ownership and possession of respective parties which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is considered proper that the parties aggrieved should approach the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for such a declaration of its right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and also for annulment of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities in mutation proceedings. Needless to say in any such proceedings, it would also be open for the petitioner/plaintiff to raise the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner in passing the impugned order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations, however, without interfering in the impugned order. 9. However, it is also made clear that no observations made herein above shall be treated as comments on the merits of the case of either of the parties.