Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 688 (JHR)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-11

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : This writ petition is for the following relief’s: (i) For quashing the letter no.485 dated 23.02.2018 as contained in Annexure-4 issued by Circle Officer, Jamshedpur whereby and where under he has directed to pay compensation in favour of the tribal. (ii) For quashing the letter no.559 dated 06.03.2018 as contained in Annexure-5 issued by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the Officer-in-Charge, Govindpur Police Station has been requested to take necessary action as the petitioners are allegedly not paying the compensation as determined in R.P. Case No.22 of 1997-98. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his late father namely Saudagar Singh had acquired lands admeasuring 1.40 Hectares situated at Ward No.19, Plot Nos.454, 455, 457, 602(A), 602(B), 602(C), 602/645 (total 34 plots) situated at Mouza Jojobera in the district of Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur and after acquiring the said land got his name mutated in the records of rights. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that for the same set of land a title suit being Title Suit No.137 of 1963 had been filed for declaration of right, title and interest which was decreed in favour of the petitioners’ father; revenue survey was held in the year 1963 wherein the name of the father of the petitioners namely Saudagar Singh has been mentioned for regularly making payment of rent. But after lapse of substantial period i.e. in the year 1997 a plaint has been filed under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act being S.A.R/R.P. Case No.22 of 1997-98 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms who in the capacity of Schedule Area Regulation Officer, Jamshedpur has passed order dated 08.10.2001 directing the father of the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- with respect to 0.30.70 Hectares of land. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved with the said order approached before the appellate authority-District Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, who has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by dismissing the appeal modified the order to the effect in place of compensating the tribal/recorded raiyat has directed for restoration of land in question against which revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa being Revision No.12 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2017 and allowed the revision. 5. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the revisional authority has concurred with the finding of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms so far as its maintainability of the restoration application filed under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is concerned on the ground of limitation and once the lis has been said to barred by limitation it is treated to be dismissed but the Circle Officer has passed an order on 23.02.2018 directing the Officer-in-Charge, Govindpur Police Station to conduct an enquiry that under what circumstances the construction is going on while the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in S.A.R/R.P. Case No.22 of 1997-98 there is direction to compensate the recorded raiyat since they have not been paid, the petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid direction of the Circle Officer is before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the revision has been allowed on the ground of limitation as would be evident from revisional order dated 17.05.2017, the order passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur directing the Officer-in-Charge, Govindpur Police Station regarding non-payment of compensation is contrary to the order passed by the revisional authority. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent has submitted that the revisional order passed by the revisional authority as also the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has framed the issues, one of the issues under paragraph-4 which pertains as to whether the present issue is barred by limitation, the same has been answered in favour of the petitioner but simultaneously direction has been passed upon the petitioner to compensate the recorded raiyat and therefore, the revisional authority has also concurred with the finding but the same pertains only to the limitation and rest of the paragraph which pertains to direction of making payment of compensation has not been altered/modified or set aside and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that the petitioners are not liable to make payment of compensation in favour of the recorded raiyat. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the submission made by the State, has submitted that the intent of the order passed by the Commissioner under its revisional jurisdiction is that when the suit has been said to be not maintainable on the ground of limitation no further direction can be said to exist and thereby the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms so far as the maintainability of the suit having barred by limitation, the other direction will also ipso facto is to be stand quashed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the submission as to the finding recorded by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, this Court is not in dispute with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms while initiating a proceeding under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, has framed the issue being Issue No.4 as under paragraph-4 which pertains as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. 10. The Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms has come to a conscious finding on the basis of various pronouncements of the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a lis cannot be said to be maintainable if filed after lapse of reasonable period and therefore, the finding has been recorded that the application filed under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is barred by limitation. 11. But in the said paragraph while answering the aforesaid issue it has been recorded therein that the petitioners will be liable to pay compensation by making payment as referred therein. 12. The petitioners have approached before the appellate authority who in spite of direction to compensate the recorded raiyat by making payment, has directed for restoration of land under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act by modifying the order passed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms while dismissing the appeal. 13. 12. The petitioners have approached before the appellate authority who in spite of direction to compensate the recorded raiyat by making payment, has directed for restoration of land under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act by modifying the order passed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms while dismissing the appeal. 13. The petitioners, being aggrieved with both the orders, have approached before the revisional authority who in the impugned order, more particularly the last paragraph which is referred here-in-below: “that the Commissioner has concurred with the finding regarding the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground of barred by limitation and to that effect he has recorded therein that he is agreeable with the findings of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jamshedpur while allowing the aforesaid revision but as has been transpired by this Court such order passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur dated 23.02.2018 as contained in Annexure-4, there are two findings, first pertains to limitation and second pertains to compensation, however regarding compensation no issue has been framed but the direction for compensation has been passed.” 14. If the Commissioner has concurred with the finding pertaining to limitation there is no direction pertaining to compensation upon which petitioners have to make payment in favour of the recorded raiyat and on that pretext the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur has issued order dated 23.02.2018 and as such it cannot be said that the Circle Officer which is during the order impugned committed illegality. 15. Since this Court is sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein direction in the nature of writ of certiorari is called, which can be only if there is any illegality or perversity apparent on the face of record but what has been transpired by this Court the part of the order by which compensation has been directed to be made has not been modified. 16. Mr. Das, however submits that when on limitation itself the proceeding has been held to be not maintainable as such the order of paying compensation cannot be proper. 17. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order of paying compensation has not been modified by the revisional authority there fore the petitioners ought to have approach before the Revisional authority for modification/clarification of the order. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought for liberty to file appropriate application before the Revisional authority. 19. 17. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order of paying compensation has not been modified by the revisional authority there fore the petitioners ought to have approach before the Revisional authority for modification/clarification of the order. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought for liberty to file appropriate application before the Revisional authority. 19. In view thereof, petitioners are at liberty to approach before the Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa for making necessary clarification in the order passed by the Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa dated 17.05.2017. 20. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of.