Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1461 (JHR)

Chitranjan Das Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2018-07-06

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties who have advanced their arguments on the point of jurisdiction of the Circle Officer, Land Reforms Deputy Collector as well as the Commissioner in view of the provisions of Section 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘the aforesaid Act’ of 1973). 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing the order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh the respondent no. 2 in Jamabandi cancellation Revision no. 2/2002 (Annexure-7) a case of second revision in mutation matter whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, the respondent no. 3 in Misc. No. 49/98 (Annexure-6) has been set aside and the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh, the respondent no. 4 (Annexure-4) has been affirmed. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and without consideration of law and facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order dated 16.04.2002 (Annexure-7). 3. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the impugned order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division in Jamabandi Cancellation Revision Case No. 2/2002 submits that under the provisions of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act, revision lies before the Collector of the District and the Collector of the District is the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, he submits that the order of revision which has been passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag is without jurisdiction. He submits that earlier there was a provision for second revision under Section 17 of the Act which was omitted by the Act 3 of 1983. 4. Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand does not dispute the submission of the petitioner the revision is not maintainable before the Commissioner and the competent authority is the Collector of the District i.e. Deputy Commissioner. Counsel appearing for the respondent-state submits that the application which was filed before the Circle Officer was for issuance of rent receipts and was neither for cancellation of jamabandi nor for mutation, and the same should have be disposed of by the Circle Officer in accordance with law. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-state submits that the application which was filed before the Circle Officer was for issuance of rent receipts and was neither for cancellation of jamabandi nor for mutation, and the same should have be disposed of by the Circle Officer in accordance with law. 5. Counsel for the private respondent submits that the order which was impugned before the Commissioner was passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribag who was not the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 15 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 and further he submits that if the order passed by the learned Commissioner is set aside then this would revive another order passed by the Additional Collector which is also without jurisdiction. He further submits that application in connection with mutation is to be filed before the Circle Officer and it is to be disposed of by the said authority against which appeal lies before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the revision lies before the Collector. He submits that in the instant case, the Circle Officer instead of passing the order himself as per the provision of section 14 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 referred the matter to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector passed the original order, although the Circle Officer is the authority who has to pass the original order. Against this, the private respondent had no option and they filed revision before the Commissioner. 6. Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the application in connection with mutation/payment of rent/ issuance of rent receipts has to be filed before the Circle Officer and has to be disposed of by the said authority, but counsel for the private respondent submits that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the Circle Officer and the appropriate remedy is to file civil suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 7. For deciding the point of jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner it is useful to quote the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973 which are as follows:- 14. 7. For deciding the point of jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner it is useful to quote the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973 which are as follows:- 14. Requisition and disposal of mutation case-(1) On receipt of notice under Section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 or an application under Sections 11 and 12 or a report under Section 13, the Anchal Adhikari shall start a mutation proceeding and after entering it in the mutation case register which shall be maintained in the prescribed form shall cause such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. (2) The Anchal Adhikari shall issue a general notice and also give notice to the parties concerned to file objection, if any, within fifteen days of the issue of the notice. On receipt of objection, if any, the Anchal Adhikari shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce evidence, if any, and of being heard and dispose of the objection and pass such orders as may be deemed necessary. (3) In cases in which no objections are received the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of within one month of the date of expiry of filing objection and in cases in which objections are received, the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of in not more than three months from the date of expiry of the period of filing objections. 15. Appeals-(1) An appeal shall lie to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector against the order of the Anchal Adhikari passed under sub-section [(2)] of Section 14, if preferred within [thirty days] of the date of order appealed against. (2) No order modifying altering or setting-aside any order appealed against shall be passed under this section unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Subject to the provisions of [Section 16], the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on appeal shall be final. 16. (2) No order modifying altering or setting-aside any order appealed against shall be passed under this section unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Subject to the provisions of [Section 16], the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on appeal shall be final. 16. Revision- The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit : Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order; Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting-aside any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. Thus this court finds that application in connection with mutation/payment of rent/ issuance of rent receipts has to be filed before the Circle Officer and has to be disposed of by the said authority. The appellate authority is Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the revisional authority is the Collector of the district under the aforesaid Act of 1973. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the order which has been passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag in Jamabandi Cancellation Revision No. 2/2002 is wholly without jurisdiction because admittedly as per the provisions of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, the revisional authority is the collector of the district i.e the Deputy Commissioner. This court further finds that setting aside of this order will revive another order which was wholly without jurisdiction i.e. the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 10.12.2001 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition because as per the provisions of aforesaid Act of 1973 , the appellate authority is the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. This court further finds that setting aside of this order will revive another order which was wholly without jurisdiction i.e. the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 10.12.2001 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition because as per the provisions of aforesaid Act of 1973 , the appellate authority is the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. This court further finds that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has passed the original order as contained in Annexue-4 to this writ petition, although Land Reforms Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to pass order as original authority under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973 and the authority lies with the anchal adhakari i.e the circle officer. Accordingly, this court finds that all the three orders passed in this case is dehors the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973 and for the ends of justice all the three orders i.e. the order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, in Jamabandi cancellation Revision no. 2/2002 (Annexure-7), the order dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, in Misc. No. 49/98 (Annexure-6) as well as the order dated 15.11.1998( Annexure-4 ) passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector in C.R.R. Case no 2 of 1997-98 are hereby set aside being passed without jurisdiction. 10. However, so far as the order of the Circle Officer dated 17.01.1997 in mutation case no 18 of 1996-97 is concerned, the application filed before the Circle Officer was to be disposed of by the Circle Officer himself in accordance with law after considering the objections raised by the parties before the said authority and therefore the Circle Officer in this case instead of making any recommendation vide order dated 17.01.1997 ought to have exercised his power and pass final order as per section 14 of the aforesaid Act of 1973. Having not done so, the Circle Officer has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and in this view of the matter the case is remitted back to the Circle Officer, Gola to pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the parties. He shall pass speaking and reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973. 11. At this stage, Counsel for the parties submits that they will appear before the Circle Officer on 13.08.2018. He shall pass speaking and reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973. 11. At this stage, Counsel for the parties submits that they will appear before the Circle Officer on 13.08.2018. Therefore it is directed that once the parties appear before the Circle Officer on 13.08.2018, the Circle Officer shall proceed to decide the matter under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973 after hearing the parties within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 12. It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the matter and it will be open to the circle officer to pass any order in accordance with law.