Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 130 (JHR)

Navdeep Chandra Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-20

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2020
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in Mutation Revision No. 42 of 2014, order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3-Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh in Mutation Appeal No. 03 of 2014-15 and order dated 27.07.2013 passed by the respondent no. 4-the Circle Officer, Gola in Case No. 48 of 2013-14 on the application preferred by the petitioners for issuance of rent receipts in relation to the land pertaining to plot no. 79, khata no. 217 measuring an area of 1.47 acres situated in Mouza- Gola No. 26, P.S. Gola, District- Ramgarh (hereinafter to be called as “the said land”), which has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is recorded as “Gairmajarua Khas’ and Jamabandi was not opened in the name of vendors in Register-II of the circle office, Gola. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to regularize the rent receipts of the said land in favour of the petitioners. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the ex-landlord namely Bakshi Loknath Das and other co-sharers made raiyati settlement of the said land in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners by way of the registered settlement deed no. 839 dated 27.08.1930. After the said settlement, the settlee were put in khas possession of the said land. Even after vesting of Jamindari, the State government never claimed any proprietary right over the said land. The petitioners filed application before the respondent no. 4 on 09.07.2013 requesting inter alia to accept the rent of the said land which was registered as Mutation Case No. 48 of 2013-14. Though the report was submitted by the Circle Inspector and the Halka Karmchari showing possession of the petitioners over the said land, yet the respondent no. 4 rejected the petitioners’ application vide order dated 27.07.2013. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeal before the respondent no. 3 which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 03 of 2014-15, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2014. The petitioners then preferred revision before the respondent no. 2 which was registered as Mutation Revision No. 42 of 2014, however the said revision was also dismissed by the respondent no. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeal before the respondent no. 3 which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 03 of 2014-15, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2014. The petitioners then preferred revision before the respondent no. 2 which was registered as Mutation Revision No. 42 of 2014, however the said revision was also dismissed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 01.08.2015 primarily on the ground that the land in question was recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Khas’ in survey Khatian and the Jamabandi thereof was not opened in the name of the vendors of the land. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the ex-landlords were competent to make raiyati settlement of ‘Gairmajarua’ land in favour of the raiyats. The petitioners/their ancestors were in possession of the said land even after vesting of Zamnidari. The ex-landlords were duty bound to file the return in Form-M showing the petitioners/their predecessors as raiyats over the said land. The petitioners being poor illiterate persons could neither pay the rents to the State Government nor could get their names entered in the revenue records of Gola circle at the time of vesting. Nonetheless, the petitioners are in possession of the said land for more than 30 years and have thus claimed the right and title on the ground of adverse possession and the same is not subjected to any challenge by the State. The petitioners/their predecessors were raiyats pursuant to the raiyati settlement vide registered deed executed in the year 1930. The respondent authorities, without initiating any proceeding for cancellation of raiyati settlement arising out of the said registered deed, cannot be allowed to question the raiyati status of the petitioners even after vesting of Zamindari in 1956 merely because the ex-Zamindar did not file any return showing the petitioners as the raiyats pursuant to the execution of the settlement deed. The petitioners have obtained a valid settlement by the registered deed and as such they cannot be deprived of paying rent to the State Government for the said land. The possession of the petitioners/their predecessors over the said land in pursuance of execution of the registered settlement deed has not been questioned by the circle officer or any other field officer. 4. The possession of the petitioners/their predecessors over the said land in pursuance of execution of the registered settlement deed has not been questioned by the circle officer or any other field officer. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said land is a ‘Gairmajarua Khas’ land as recorded in the C.S. record and as such the same has vested in the State which has now become public land. As per letter no. 10 dated 20.09.2019 issued by the officer-in-charge, Record Room, Ramgarh, the Khatiyan of the said land is in dilapidated condition as such the copy of the same could not be made available. It is further submitted that mere settlement of the land does not confer title in favour of any person until and unless he is found to be in possession over the same. The petitioners do not hold the possession over the said land and thus are not entitled for any relief as claimed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were never in possession of the said land as they are unable to produce any document in support of the said fact. The petitioners filed mutation application in relation to the said land which could not have been allowed as the vendor of the deed got no Jamabandi in his favour. Hence, the order passed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are perfectly justified. The petitioners filed mutation application for issuance of rent receipts knowing the fact that they have obtained the land by way of settlement and no Jambandi can be established by way of mutation which was acquired through settlement. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the said land was settled in favour of their ancestors by the ex-landlord in the year 1930 by way of registered deed of settlement and according to them, they/their ancestors have been in possession of the same since the date of the settlement and as such, the respondents have wrongly rejected the petitioners’ application for mutation of the said land in their name. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that the said land is recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Khas’ which has vested in the government in view of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as that the Jamabandi of the said land was never opened in the name of the vendors of the petitioners. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument has put reliance on a judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Yadunandan Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2016 (3) PLJR 237 . The fact of the said case was that the land was settled in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners of the said case in the year 1936 and Jamabandi in their favour was created in the year 1956 itself. The Patna High Court taking note of the fact that a proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi was initiated in the year 1993-94 and was subsequently dropped and the same not being challenged before any superior authority, attained finality, has held as under: “11. As I have already observed this issue stands settled way back in 1956 in the judgment rendered in the case of Chandreshwari Prasad Narain Deo vs. The State of Bihar since reported in 1956 (4) BLJR 24 and has been exhaustively discussed in the judgment of Ramnandan Singh (supra) yet the wisdom continues to evade the authorities. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that the settlement was made by the Ex-Zamindar with the father of the petitioner in 1936 and there is nothing on record to controvert this statement of the petitioner rather there are documents to support that the jamabandi was created in the name of petitioner’s father and was entered in the revenue records in 1956 and when jamabandi no.79 was created against his name. Thus neither the recommendation stands supported by the statutory provisions of section 4(h) of ‘the Act’ nor the judicial pronouncements on the issue permit the respondent to unsettle a position existing for almost 60 years. 12. The only ground raised by the private respondents to unsettle the possession which is existing for almost six decades is that the nature of the land is Gairmazarua Aam and according to the impugned recommendation, it is being used by the public. 13. 12. The only ground raised by the private respondents to unsettle the possession which is existing for almost six decades is that the nature of the land is Gairmazarua Aam and according to the impugned recommendation, it is being used by the public. 13. I fail to understand as to how this objection can again be raised to exercise jurisdiction when on a similar charge the Circle Officer had earlier recommended for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of father of the petitioner which led to registration of Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 1993-94. ‘The DCLR’ after examining the legal provisions on the issue of settlement on a Gairmazarua Aam land, the law of limitation as well as the judicial pronouncements on the issue had upheld the claim of the father of the petitioner considering that his possession on the land was continuing since almost 40 years of the creation of jamabandi in 1956 and for even a greater period since the settlement made in the year 1936.” 7. However, so far as the present case is concerned, its facts situation is entirely different. Though the petitioners have claimed that the said land was settled in the name of their ancestors in the year 1930 by the ex-landlord, they failed to produce any document in support of the factum of possession over the said land since the date of settlement. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also put reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Chotanagpur Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 (1) JCR 80 . On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the same does not help the cause of the petitioner as it has been held inter alia that besides title, mutation is an evidence of possession and therefore even if a person has got a title, that shall not be deemed to be the evidence of possession unless mutation is done and the rent receipts are issued in favour of the owner of the building. 8. In the present case, admittedly, after vesting of Zamindari, neither Jamabandi was created in the name of the petitioners’ predecessors nor the rent of the said land was fixed by the competent authority. 8. In the present case, admittedly, after vesting of Zamindari, neither Jamabandi was created in the name of the petitioners’ predecessors nor the rent of the said land was fixed by the competent authority. For the first time in the year 2013, the petitioners filed application for accepting the rent on the strength of the settlement deed dated 27.08.1930 which was rejected by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 holding inter alia that the Jamabandi in the name of the vendors of the petitioners was not running. The petitioners have sought intervention of this Court in the writ jurisdiction by placing reliance on the registered deed of settlement. They have however not brought on record sufficient evidence to suggest as to whether the landlords after vesting of Zamindari has mentioned their name in Form-M with respect to the said land. Surprisingly, the petitioners kept silence for about 60 years after vesting of Zamindari by not approaching the appropriate authority for creation of their Jamabandi in relation to the said land and also for fixation of rent in time. 9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find sufficient material on record to interfere with the orders of the courts blow under the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are however at liberty to take recourse before the fact finding court claiming their title upon the said land. 10. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.