Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2539 (JHR)

Laxmi Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-26

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B.MANGALMURTI, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2018
ORDER : The appellant, being unsuccessful before the learned First Court in having an order of mutation in respect of certain property invalidated, has approached us in appeal. The property in question is situated at village Bankheta, Police Station Ramgarh in the Ramgarh district, recorded in Khata no.8 and 9. The original recorded raiyat in respect of the subject-property was one Kishun Singh. Dhiraj Nath Singh inherited the property on death of Kishun Singh. Subsequently, Dhiraj Nath Singh died leaving behind his widow and son Janak Kuari and Hem Nath Singh. Hem Nath married Pancham Kuari and said Pancham Kuari adopted the husband of the respondent no.5- Sidheshwar Singh. Such adoption was done by virtue of a registered deed of adoption. It appears that Pancham Kuari had executed a deed of gift in respect of the subject land in favour of Sidheshwar Singh. As we have already indicated, said Sidheshwar Singh was the husband of the respondent no.5-Sudha Singh. She was the writ petitioner in the proceeding out of which this appeal arises and is respondent no.5 before us. The aforesaid deed of gift was registered on 26th April, 1994. On death of Sidheshwar Singh, Sudha Singh is claiming to be his legal heir and consequently the present owner of the subject property. Admitted position is that mutation has been effected in the name of Sidheshwar Singh. 2. Pancham Kuari (since deceased), being the mother of Sidheshwar Singh had questioned legality of the mutation effected in relation to the subject property on the ground that her son was trying to grab the entire property illegally. The appellant has challenged the mutation proceeding. When inquired of his interest in the subject- property, learned counsel for the appellant apprised us that the property in question is HUF property and the appellant had a stake in that property. Controversy before the statutory authorities was on the question of mutation. The dispute eventually reached to the learned First Court and the learned First Court opined and held:- “10. Controversy before the statutory authorities was on the question of mutation. The dispute eventually reached to the learned First Court and the learned First Court opined and held:- “10. On perusal of the record of the present case, it appears that the Circle Officer, Ramgarh had opened the jamabandi of the said land in favour of the husband of the petitioner after going through the report of the Halka Karamchariand Circle Inspsector who had reported that the husband of the petitioner was adopted by Mosmat Pancham Kunwari and the said land was gifted to him by Deed No. 1206 dated 26.04.1994. They further reported that the property is in possession of the husband of the petitioner upon which the respondent no. 5 is growing crops on ‘Adhbatai’. Thereafter, the circle officer passed the order of opening of jamabandi in the name of the husband of the petitioner. In the appeal as well as revision filed by Mosmat Pancham Kunwari and the respondent no. 5, the learned courts below observed that the matter relates to the adjudication of title and as such the same cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities. However, the revisional authority directed the Circle Officer for not issuing rent receipt till the adjudication of title of the parties over the said land by the civil court. 11. I have also perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent no 5. In the case of Nand Kishor Dubey (Supra.), a Bench of this court held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the complicated legal disputes including adverse claim of the parties. In the case of Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Supra.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a gift to another coparcener or to a stranger may be given with the prior consent of all other coparceners. The said judgments will have no application in the present fact and circumstance where the revisional authority on the one hand was of the opinion that the dispute raised pertains to the title over the said land and thus directed the parties to move before the civil court, on the other hand, he directed the Circle Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no.4) for staying the issuance of rent receipt. Since the purpose of creation of jamabandi is the collection of land revenue from the person who is in possession of the land and the respondent no. Since the purpose of creation of jamabandi is the collection of land revenue from the person who is in possession of the land and the respondent no. 4 was of the firm view that the husband of the petitioner is in possession of the said land, the issuance of rent receipt in favour of the petitioner cannot be stopped till any contrary order by a civil court of competent jurisdiction is passed. 12. In view of the aforesaid legal as well as the factual position of the present case, I am of the opinion that the direction of the respondent no.2 for not issuing the rent receipt to the parties till the final adjudication of the matter by the civil court of competent jurisdiction is not proper and as such the order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 in Mutation Revision Case No. 56 of 2010 to the extent the Circle Officer, Ramgarh (respondent no. 4) has been directed to stay the issuance of rent receipt, is quashed.” 3. We are of the view that the dispute involved in this proceeding is essentially civil in nature and it would be for the court of competent civil jurisdiction to determine the question of legality of the deed of gift which goes to the very core of the rival claims. But, considering the reasoning of the learned First Court, we do not want to interfere with the order under appeal. The learned First Court had considered the factual position while quashing the part of the order of the Circle Officer by which stay of issue of rent receipt was stayed. We however direct that any step taken consequent to issue of the rent receipt shall abide by the decree or order of the Civil Court in the event appropriate action is instituted in such Court. 4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.