Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 286 (JHR)

Rukmini Devi Jalan v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-02

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned JC to SC (L&C). 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No. 4) in Case No. 141/R-15/02-03 as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition whereby the said authority has been pleased to dismiss the Revision filed by the petitioners. (b) For issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to mutate the names of the petitioners in the Government Revenue Records. (c) For issuance of show-cause against the respondent No. 5 as to how he has passed an order after his transfer from the post as also as to how he has passed the final order in the Revision case after nearly two and half years from the date of hearing of final arguments. (d) The petitioners had filed petition for amendment of the writ petition being LA No. 819 of 2008 challenging the orders dated 18.5.2002/24.5.2002 passed by the Circle Officer. Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 105/2000-2001 as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition and also challenging the order dated 19.9.2002 passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 21R/02-03 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application. This petition for amendment was allowed vide order dated 27.4.2009. Thus, the orders passed by the Circle Officer as well as the appellate authority are also under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while giving the factual background of the case submits as under:- (i) Plot involved in this case is plot nos. 317, 318 and 319 situated at Chandwe within the district of Ranchi. (ii) According to the petitioners, the aforesaid plots were Gairmajarua Malik lands of the then Landlord Rajguru Sridharnath Rao Pendse who made Chhaparbandi settlement by registered deed dated 2.9.1940. (iii) The said Chhaparbandi settlement was followed by registered deed of Kabuliat dated 3.10.1940. (iv) An enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Kanke who confirmed that the aforesaid documents were registered vide his letter dated 17.6.2000. (iii) The said Chhaparbandi settlement was followed by registered deed of Kabuliat dated 3.10.1940. (iv) An enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Kanke who confirmed that the aforesaid documents were registered vide his letter dated 17.6.2000. (v) The specific case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid land was settled by the landlord in favour of Ranglal Jalan with Chhaparbandi rights and the settlee Ranglal Jalan paid rent to the landlord against receipts. (vi) Further case of the petitioners is that intermediary estate vested in the State of Bihar on promulgation of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. (vii) Intermediary estate vested in the State of Bihar on promulgation of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. However there was a confusion as to whether in respect of lands with Chhaparbandi rights, the estate of the landlord had vested in the State of Bihar or not. Title Suit Nos. 161, 162 of 1956, were filed and they were decided analogously by the court of 1st Additional Munsif, Ranchi. By judgment dated 22.8.1959 the learned Additional Munsif held that in respect of Chhaparbandi lands the right of the ex-intermediary to collect rent had not vested in the State of Bihar. (viii) On the basis of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the then landlord Rajguru S.V.R. Pendse wrote a letter dated 17.12.1959 and claimed payment of Chhaparbandi rent from with interest from Ranglal Jalan. (ix) Circle Officer, Kanke served a notice on Ranglal Jalan demanding rent and stating that Ranglal Jalan should appear on 18.8.1959 to substantiate payment of rent to ex- intermediary for last two years. (x) Ranglal Jalan sent reply by registered post with A/D and was received in the office of the Circle Officer, Kanke. (xi) Thereafter C.O. Kanke sent notice dated 8.9.1959 to Ranglal Jalan asking him to appear on 17.9.1959 with receipt to show payment of rent to ex-landlord. (xii) Ranglal Jalan submitted reply dated 5.12.1960. (xiii) That thereafter the Circle Office, Kanke sent Letter No. 26 dated 2.2.1961 directing Ranglal Jalan to pay Chhaparbandi Malgujari. (xiv) Accordingly Ranglal Jalan began paying Chhaparbandi rent to the State Government from against duly issued receipts and rent was paid up to 2001 A.D. (xv) That on the aforesaid property residential houses and structures have been constructed and the property is now denoted as Municipal Holding No. 227/A of Ward IB and for the same taxes have been paid. (xiv) Accordingly Ranglal Jalan began paying Chhaparbandi rent to the State Government from against duly issued receipts and rent was paid up to 2001 A.D. (xv) That on the aforesaid property residential houses and structures have been constructed and the property is now denoted as Municipal Holding No. 227/A of Ward IB and for the same taxes have been paid. (xvi) That Ranglal Jalan died leaving behind two sons Surajmal Jalan and Sitaram Jalan. Sitaram Jalan filed Partition Suit No. 11 of 1988 wherein a decree in terms of compromise was passed on 7.6.1999. And by the terms of the aforesaid decree the petitioners were allotted the property involved in this case. (xvii) The petitioners applied for mutation before the Circle Officer, Kanke and said application by the petitioners was registered as Case No. 103 of 2000-2001. (xviii) The Circle Officer, Kanke rejected the application for mutation vide order dated 24.5.2004 on the grounds that: (1) In the R.S. Khatian the concerned plots were recorded Gairmajarua lands. (2) The return submitted by landlord after vesting is available. (3) No final decree has passed in the partition suit. (xix) Thereafter, the petitioners an appeal before the Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi i.e. respondent No. 3 herein and the same was numbered as Mutation Appeal No. 21 R-15 of 2002-03. Respondent No. 3 dismissed the Appeal on 19.9.2002 holding that as the nature of the land is Gairmajarua and the position of the land prior to 1961 is not clear from the Register-II and as such mutation in respect of the same cannot be allowed. (xx) Thereafter the petitioners filed a Revision application before the Collector-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi i.e. respondent No. 4, which was numbered as Case No. 141/R-15 of 2002-03. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the then Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner Sri Pradeep Kumar heard the argument on behalf of the petitioners on 10.3.2004 and reserved his judgment and passed the judgment only on 25.8.2006. For this the counsel refers the order-sheet annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners kept on enquiring from the office of the respondent No. 4 as to whether any order had passed in the said Case No. 141/R-15 of 2002-03 but they were regularly informed that no such order had been passed. For this the counsel refers the order-sheet annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners kept on enquiring from the office of the respondent No. 4 as to whether any order had passed in the said Case No. 141/R-15 of 2002-03 but they were regularly informed that no such order had been passed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the month of May 2006 the petitioners gathered information from the office of the respondent No. 4, that as more than 2 years had passed since the date of final argument the case would again be listed and the matter would be heard again by the respondent No. 4, however the case was never listed again and Sri Pradeep Kumar, the then Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner was transferred from his post on 26.9.2006. The petitioner submits that after a few weeks of his transfer the petitioner came to know that Sri Pradeep Kumar, respondent No. 5 was still retaining all the records in which orders had been reserved and has passed ante-dated orders. Thereafter the petitioners came to know that Sri Pradeep Kumar had passed an order dated 25.8.2006. The petitioners applied and obtained a Certified Copy of the entire order-sheet. The petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 is a non-speaking order as it does not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner due to which the petitioner has been highly prejudiced. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the point that admittedly the order was reserved on 10.3.2004 and the final order dated passed on 25.8.2006 i.e. after more than 2 and half years and the same is fit to be set-aside on this ground alone particularly in view of the fact that the same is a cryptic, non-speaking order and without considering the case of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order having been reserved for about two and half years, the learned Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mind to the arguments advanced by the petitioners and dismissed their case which is a cryptic order. Counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order having been reserved for about two and half years, the learned Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mind to the arguments advanced by the petitioners and dismissed their case which is a cryptic order. By referring the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 counsel for the petitioners submits that the said authority has rejected the case of the petitioner only by non-filing of the returned of the ex-intermediary in order to substantiate the claim of Chhaparbandi and further recorded that the land in question has been recorded as Chhaparbandi Khatian and no details are available before 1961. From perusal of the order it appears that the learned Deputy Commissioner has not considered the documents etc. which is on record, filed before the authority, rather has passed non-speaking cryptic order. The learned counsel further submits that initially writ application was filed only for challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and due to inadvertence, the order passed by the Circle Officer as well as Appellate Authority were not challenged and accordingly, the petitioners filed LA No. 819 of 2008 challenging the orders dated 18.5.2002/24.5.2002 passed by the Circle Officer, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 105/2000-2001 as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition and the order dated 19.9.2002 passed by the L.R.D.O. Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 21R/02-03 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has totally ignored the provision of the Sections 5, 12 and 14 of Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that registered documents as well as decree passed by the Court which have been produced before this Court are sufficient for passing mutation order. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by the authorities below. 6. However, during course of the arguments, counsel for the petitioners submits that if this matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for a fresh decision on account of fact that the order was passed after a long gap of two and half years that would be meet ends of justice. He further submits that the petitioners should be given liberty to rely upon all the evidences available with the petitioner in support of their case. 7. He further submits that the petitioners should be given liberty to rely upon all the evidences available with the petitioner in support of their case. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the impugned order was passed on 25.8.2006 and the order was reserved on 10.3.2004 for which case of the petitioners appears not to have been considered fully. However, the allegation of ante-dating has been denied. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and under the facts and circumstances of the case. I set aside the order dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure-12) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Case No. 141/R-15 of 2002-03, Smt. Rukkmani Devi Jalan and Others vs. State and remit the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi for fresh hearing and for passing fresh reasoned order considering the materials produced by the parties on account of following facts and reasons:- (a) Admittedly, the order was reserved on 10.3.2004 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the final order was pronounced only on 25.8.2006 that is after more than 2 and half years. (b) It has been held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 6 SCC 384 that after the arguments are concluded an endeavor should be made to pronounce the judgment at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of three months and keeping it pending for a long time sends wrong signal to the litigants and the society. (c) The impugned order dated 25.8.2006 reflects that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has not properly appreciated the facts of the case including the registered documents as well as decree passed by the Court. Moreover, the various relevant provisions of Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi while passing the impugned order. (d) Although in the impugned order it has been mentioned that written arguments were filed but the contents of the written arguments have not been discussed. Moreover, the various relevant provisions of Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi while passing the impugned order. (d) Although in the impugned order it has been mentioned that written arguments were filed but the contents of the written arguments have not been discussed. (e) The impugned order dated 25.8.2006 is cryptic order not dealing with many vital aspects of the case and as after the judgment was reserved on 10.3.2004 and the final order having not been passed for more than 2 and half years, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi appears to have forgotten the arguments advanced by the parties which has resulted in the impugned order dated 25.8.2006. 9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 as contained in Annexure-12 of the writ petition to the extent it relates to Case No. 141/R-15 of 2002-03, Smt. Rukkmani Devi Jalan and Others vs. State, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for fresh consideration of the matter and for passing a reasoned order after considering the material available on record and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. 10. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 27.2.2018 and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi shall proceed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of four months thereafter. The Deputy Commissioner shall also take into consideration any additional documents which may be filed by the parties on affidavit in support of their case. 11. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Petition disposed of.