Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 833 (JHR)

Shamba Manjhi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-11

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, counsel appearing on behalf of the private-respondents assisted by Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate. 3. Heard Mr. Aditya Raman, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "For a direction for quashing the order dated 25-6-02 passed in Bokaro Revenue Revision No.59/98 by the respondent no.2 whereby the order passed by the respondent no.3 has been reversed and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper." 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:- (a) The ancestors of the petitioners had purchased the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.1954 from one Chhotu Singh Choudhary who in turn had purchased it from one Kanhaiyalal Marwari vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.1934 who in turn had purchased the property in auction sale in execution case along with other lands from the land lord in execution case no. 1871 of 1932-33. The ancestors of the petitioners after purchase applied for opening of demand and it was assessed and since then they have been paying rent to the state and in the recent khaitan, the name of the petitioners has been recorded. (b) The petitioners as well as the private respondents belong to the caste namely Kumhar which is not a schedule tribe. Suppressing this fact the members of private respondents filed an application for restoration of land under section 71A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the year 1987 being restoration case no. 523/1987-88 and an order of restoration was also passed in their favour but at the time of execution , it came to light that both the parties do not belong to schedule tribes and accordingly the collector vide order dated 3.10.1991 dropped the land restoration case no. 523/1987-88. (c) After having failed to get the land through land restoration case no. 523/1987-88 the private respondents made application for opening Jamabandi in their name which was numbered as Misc. 523/1987-88. (c) After having failed to get the land through land restoration case no. 523/1987-88 the private respondents made application for opening Jamabandi in their name which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 5(ix) of 1994-95 before the respondent no.5 and an order dated 07.08.1994 was passed by the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari, wherein the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari had recommended for payment of rent from the applicants and the matter was to be placed before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas for passing the order. (d) Thereafter, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas passed the order dated 15.5.1996 wherein the said authority observed that the record which has been put up by the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari does not disclose as to who is in actual possession of the property and accordingly remanded the matter to the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari for passing necessary order after due verification. (e) Against this order, the petitioner had filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.5 of 1996-97 and during the pendency of the appeal the necessary inspection was done by the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari which was contained in letter no.620 dated 16.09.1996 which in turn was pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.05.1996 wherein, the said authority found that the petitioners are in possession of the property and this particular inspection report dated 16.09.1996 was considered by the appellate authority who decided the appeal in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 27.12.1997. (f) Against this, the private respondents herein filed revision petition before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur, Division, Hazaribag which was numbered as Bokaro Revenue Revision Case No.59 of 1998 and the said authority after hearing the parties held that the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas was correct and set-aside the order of the appellate authority. (g) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the various observations and findings which has been recorded by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag are serious errors of records and accordingly the impugned order dated 25.06.2002 passed by the court of Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag is fit to be set-aside. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the certified copy of the survey record of right (Khatian) as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the certified copy of the survey record of right (Khatian) as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. (h) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas which was ultimately upheld by the learned commissioner, contemplated a verification as to who was in actual possession of the property. Pursuant to such direction, a local inspection was made by the Circle Officer and an inspection report dated 16.09.1996 was prepared wherein the petitioners were found in possession of the property and accordingly a fresh order is now required to be passed in compliance to the direction as contained in order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas. He submits that the observations and findings which have been wrongly recorded in the order of the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order may prejudice the case of the petitioners in the proceedings which has to be taken pursuant to the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas. 6. Counsel for the private respondents on the other hand submits that the application which was filed by the private respondents, was not an application for mutation but the predecessor of the private respondents were recorded as a tenant and they simply applied for payment of rent. However, he submits that the inspection report dated 16.09.1996 which was done by the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari does not reflect the correct position so far as the possession of the property is concerned and the same could not have been taken into consideration by the appellate authority while considering the appellate order which was passed pursuant to the order dated 15.05.1996 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas. He further submits that since the appellate authority had taken the subsequent inspection report into consideration while passing the appellate order, the private respondents in this case had rightly filed their revision before the Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag who in turn after considering the facts and circumstances of this case has upheld the order passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas. He further submits that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court because the order passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas has been upheld by Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag. He further submits that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court because the order passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas has been upheld by Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag. Counsel for the private-respondents has submitted that the only remedy which is available to the petitioners is to file civil suit for declaration of their right title and interest over the property and for this purpose he has relied upon the judgment passed by this court reported in (2012) 4 JLJR 210 as well as judgment reported by Hon''ble Patna High Court reported in (1993) 2 PLJR 255. So far as the reliance of the petitioner of Annexure-6 to the writ petition is concerned the same has been disputed by the respondents. 7. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and accordingly the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds as follows:- (a) The order which was passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas as contained in order dated 15.05.1996 clearly directed the Circle Officer to find out as to who is in actual physical possession of the property and pass order accordingly. (b) The order dated 15.05.1996 was never challenged by the private respondents of this writ petition. In fact the same was challenged by the petitioners. (c) There is no dispute that possession is an important aspect so far as the mutation is concerned. The Circle Officer, Chandankiary subsequently vide letter No.620 dated 16.09.1996 gave his report in connection with physical possession of the property but no final order was passed pursuant to the inspection report dated 16.9.1996 which could have been passed only after hearing objection of the parties so far as the said inspection report is concerned. However, this particular inspection report has been relied upon by the appellate authority to give findings in favour of the writ petitioners which has been subsequently set-aside by the revisional authority in Bokaro Revision Case No.59 of 1998 wherein the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chas has been upheld and certain finding has been recorded against the petitioners. However, this particular inspection report has been relied upon by the appellate authority to give findings in favour of the writ petitioners which has been subsequently set-aside by the revisional authority in Bokaro Revision Case No.59 of 1998 wherein the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chas has been upheld and certain finding has been recorded against the petitioners. (d) Considering the fact that the parties have a right to object to the inspection report which has been prepared by the Circle Officer, Chandankiary vide letter No.620 dated 16.09.1996 and a fresh order was to be passed pursuant to the order dated 15.05.1996 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas and as the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has been upheld by the learned Commissioner, a fresh order is required to be passed by the Circle Officer/Land Reforms Deputy Collector pursuant to the inspection report as contained in letter No.620 dated 16.09.1996 prepared by the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari. (e) Considering the fact that a fresh order is required to be passed pursuant to order dated 15.05.1996 on the application filed by the respondents, the judgments relied upon by the respondents reported in (2012) 4 JLJR 210 as well as judgment reported by Hon''ble Patna High Court reported in (1993) 2 PLJR 255 does not help the respondents in any manner at this stage as these judgments are on the point that the revenue authorities do not and cannot decide title of the property during the mutation proceedings and the said proceedings are only for revenue records. (f) In that view of the matter the observations/findings which has been recorded by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag in the impugned order dated 25.06.2002 may come in the way of the Circle Officer or the Land Reforms Deputy Collector while passing fresh order pursuant to the order passed by Land Reform Deputy Collector, Chas. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Chandankeyari/Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas are directed to pass fresh order pursuant to order dated 15.05.1996 after considering the objections of the parties and also after considering the submissions of the parties and objections of the parties in connection with the inspection report dated 16.9.1996 and the said authority will not be prejudiced by any observation or findings which has been recorded by the learned commissioner in the impugned order dated 25.06.2002. The said authority will also consider the various documents etc. or the submission which may be submitted before the said authority by the parties and will not be prejudiced by any observation made by the Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag in the impugned order dated 25.06.2002 passed in Bokaro Revenue Revision No.59/98 as well as the appellate order dated 27.12.1997 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No. 5 of 1996-97. The Circle Officer, Chandankeyari/Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas are directed to pass final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.