Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1349 (JHR)

Bindeshwari Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-07-26

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents to issue Raiyati Recognition Certificate with respect to the lands measuring an area of 3.15 acres appertaining to plot nos. 1177 and 1339 and plot No. 992 pertaining to Khata No. 78 situated at village Barkagaon P.O. & P.S. & District-Hazaribagh, but no such decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ petition. 2. Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted by referring to the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the State has disputed the title, who has got no jurisdiction to look into the title of the party. He has tried to make out a specific case that the petitioner has purchased the property from one Phalguni Mishra through the deed dated 05.03.1991 and thereafter, he has made an application for giving Recognition Certificate with respect to the aforesaid land but the same is being disputed by treating the said Certificate as forged on account of the fact that the sale deed dated 29.05.1990 reflects the name of one Chaturgun, who according to the respondents authorities, has never came in effect. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revenue authority cannot look into the legality and veracity of the title, rather, the same is to be looked into only by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and therefore, the stand, as has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, is nothing but only to harass the petitioner. 4. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P. IV appearing for the State Respondents has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit, wherein, inter alia, stand has been taken that the very deed, basis upon which the petitioner is claiming his title, has been disputed by the State Respondents, as appear from the statement made at paragraphs 8 and 9 to the said affidavit. 5. 5. However, he has also referred to the statement made at paragraph 10, whereby and whereunder it has been alleged against the petitioner that without awaiting for the outcome of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and since the factual dispute is to be ascertained before issuance of the Recovery Recognition Certificate, therefore, it would be just, appropriate and proper to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to take decision in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioner being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, who has not taken any decision for issuance of Raiyati Recognition Certificate with respect to the land in question, which compelled the petitioner to approach before this Court by filing the instant writ petition, wherein the State has appeared and filed the counter affidavit, wherein, inter alia, the stand has been taken that the gift deed dated 05.03.1991 has been said to be forged one, since the title, which has been conferred upon one Phalguni Mishra, the vender of the petitioner, has got title by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.05.1990, executed by one Chaturgun, but the same has never came in effect. 7. This Court has gone across the recitals of the gift deed dated 05.03.1991, as contained in Annexure-1, wherein, it has been referred that the said Phalguni Mishra has got title over the land in question from one Chaturgun Sao, who has sold out the landed property in question by virtue of the registered sale deed no. 8163, dated 29.05.1990, therefore, this Court is of the view that certain facts is to be ascertained and since the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has already been approached, but he is sitting tight over the matter, as such, this Court deem it fit and proper to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to take decision after calling upon the competent revenue authority and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also if he feels necessary the venders of the petitioner and the said Chaturgun Sao, whose reference has been made in the gift deed dated 05.03.1991. 8. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh shall take decision by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.