Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 741 (JHR)

Bhawani Mahapatra v. State of Bihar

2017-04-21

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The impugned order dated 18th September, 2000 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi-respondent No.2 in S.A.R. Revision No.36/2000 preferred by the original petitioner, affirms the order dated 20th July, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in S.A.R. Appeal No. 149/1998-99 and the order dated 25th November, 1998 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila-respondent No. 4 (Annexures-7, 5 and 3 respectively). 3. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioner is the decree dated 17th May, 1965 passed by the court of learned Munsif, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.237/1965 between the original petitioner and Swarup Majhi son of late Daso Majhi, whereunder suit was decreed in terms of the compromise between the parties in respect of the claim for declaration of plaintiffs' raiyati right and title over the suit lands described in the Schedule given therein, as quoted herein below :- "Claim for declaration of plaintiffs' raiyati right and title over the suit lands described in the Schedule given below. Cause of action arose on and from 11.1.1965, suit valued at Rs. 650/-. Plaint filed on 28.5.1965. Schedule A. In Mouza Musabani, thana No.162, P.S. Ghatsila, (Musabani) Pergana Dhalbhum, Dist. Singhbhum, raiyati lands recorded in R.S. Khata No. 100, R.S. Plot No. 770, corresponding to current settlement khata No. 185, current plot No. 1364, area 0.74 decimals, 11 karies Dhani III lands bounded on North : Basal Santal and plaintiffs house, South :- D.V.C. Colony. Annual rent Rs. 2/- payable to the State of Bihar. This suit coming on this 17th day of May, 1965 for final disposal before Sri S.N. Sinha, Munsif, Jamshedpur in the presence of Sri H. Tudu, Advocate, the plaintiff and of Sri S.B. Satpath, Advocate for the defendant, it is ordered and decreed that the suit is decreed in terms of compromise. The compromise petition shall form part of the decree. Given under my hand and the seal of the court this 17th day of May, 1965." 4. The compromise petition is also part of the decree at Annexure-1. 5. The compromise petition shall form part of the decree. Given under my hand and the seal of the court this 17th day of May, 1965." 4. The compromise petition is also part of the decree at Annexure-1. 5. Petitioner has alleged that a person posing as an impostor in the name of same Daso Majhi has mischievously initiated the proceeding under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of possession against the petitioner after more than 30 years being R.P. Case No. 3/1997-98 before the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatsila. The LRDC by the order dated 25th November, 1998 (Annexure-3) directed restoration of land to the said applicant Dasi Majhi. Though, he took into account the report of the Circle Officer in respect of the subject-matter of the proceedings under Mouza Musabani, Thana No. 162, Khata No. 185, Plot No. 1364, total area 0.74 acre, but came to a conclusion that the name of Swarup Majhi father of Daso Majhi was recorded in the survey records of the year 1964. The land has therefore been transferred illegally. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the inquiry report of the Circle Officer at Annexure-2 and submitted that paragraph 6(1) thereof refers to the Title Suit No. 237/1965 in respect of the Plot No. 1364 area 74 decimals under Khata No. 185. He has estimated the cost of the construction of three rooms and a hall at about Rs. 2,50,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 46(4-A) specifically the proviso under sub-section (c) thereof. It is submitted that since the inquiry report reveals existence of substantial structure exceeding a value much beyond Rs.5,000/- on the date of inquiry, the respondent-authorities should have validated the transfer and directed alternative holding or portion of holding to be made available to the transferor of an equivalent value in the vicinity or pay adequate compensation as determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the LRDC in spite of the report of the Circle Officer and has also been completely ignored by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the LRDC in spite of the report of the Circle Officer and has also been completely ignored by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. It is submitted that the revisional authority has not at all applied his mind to the relevant material aspects and dismissed the revision petition by the impugned order dated 18th September, 2000 in a cryptic manner. Therefore the matter may be remanded to the inferior authorities for due consideration and passing a fresh order in that regard. 8. Respondents-State authorities are represented through their counsel, however no counter-affidavit has been filed. Though, name of the counsel for the private respondent is reflected in the cause list, but there is no representation on his behalf nor any counter-affidavit had been filed on his behalf. 9. The order of the revisional authority dated 18th September, 2000 is absolutely cryptic. There is no discussion on the relevant aspects including the contention of the petitioner based on the decree passed in Title Suit No. 237/1965 (Annexure-1). The respondent-authorities have neither applied their mind to the provisions under Section 46(4-A) in spite of the clear report of the Circle Officer about existence of substantial structure valued around Rs.2,50,000/- on the instant piece of land. Whether in such circumstances the Deputy Commissioner should have validated the transfer and directed the transferee to make available a holding or portion of a holding, as the case may be, of the equivalent value in the vicinity of the instant piece of land or payment of adequate compensation for rehabilitation of the transferor ate questions which have remained unanswered. 10. On consideration of these facts and grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner and the discussions made herein above, this Court is inclined to remand the matter for reconsideration to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. Accordingly, order passed in S.A.R. Revision No. 36/2000 dated 18th September, 2000 is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 20th July, 1999 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 149/ 1998-99 by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur-respondent No.3 as well as the order dated 25th November, 1998 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila-respondent No.4 also have to go. They are accordingly quashed. Consequently, the order dated 20th July, 1999 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 149/ 1998-99 by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur-respondent No.3 as well as the order dated 25th November, 1998 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila-respondent No.4 also have to go. They are accordingly quashed. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur would take a fresh decision in the matter after due application of mind and giving opportunity to the parties within a strict time frame in accordance with law. 11. Writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid manner and to the extent indicated herein above.