Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 156 (JHR)

Rakesh Kumar Tiwary v. State Of Jharkhand

2021-02-04

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 07.02.2007, passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1982-1983/ Case No. 8 of 2006-2007, by which the learned Additional Collector without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner cancelled the settlement in violation of letter no. 1043 dated 24.10.1986 issued by the Under Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 30.08.2010 , passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke in Mutation Case No. 1446R27/2009-10, by which the Circle Officer, Kanke was pleased to reject the application for Mutation filed by the petitioner for mutation of Plot No. 746, Khata No. 129, area 1.50 acres in his name. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondent No. 5 to allow the application for mutation of the petitioner with respect to land appertaining to plot No. 746, Khata No. 129, area 1.50 acres. 3. The facts of the case in short is that land in question appertaining to Khata No. 129, Plot No. 746, total area 4.90 acres situated in the village Pirra, Kanke Anchal, District Ranchi was Gairmajurua land of ex-landlord which was settled by him to one Shri Brajkishore Dubey through sada Hukumnama dated 26.05.1943 and thereafter, said Brajkishore Dubey came into peaceful possession of the land and continued to pay rent to the ex-landlord. Thereafter, Brajkishore Dubey transferred one acres fifty decimals of land out of area 4.90 acres appertaining to Khata No. 129, Plot No. 746 of village Pirra, KankeAnchal, District Ranchi to the petitioner through registered sale deed no. 112 dated 31.12.1985. In the year 1986, a letter no. 1053 dated 24.10.1986 was issued by the Under Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by which the Under Secretary, issued direction to the Deputy Commissioner that the settlement of the aforesaid land cannot be cancelled and there is no requirement of initiation of the proceeding under Section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on the following ground: (a) The said settlement was done by the Intermediately before 1946. (b) In the year 1961-62 deemed in respect of aforesaid land was opened in the Government's khata. (c) The rent is also being released by the State Govt. 4. (b) In the year 1961-62 deemed in respect of aforesaid land was opened in the Government's khata. (c) The rent is also being released by the State Govt. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition before the Revenue Officer, Ranchi under Section 89 of CNT Act for entering his name in the Record of Right and by order dated 05.07.2007, the Revenue Officer, Ranchi was pleased to direct to enter his name in the Draft Record of Right on the basis of sale deed. In compliance of said order, the name of the name of the petitioner was entered in the Draft Record of Right showing possession of the petitioner over the land in question. In the year 2008, the petitioner filed Mutation Case No. 856 R 27/2008-2009 before the Circle Officer, Kanke for mutation of the land in question but the same was rejected by the Circle Officer, Kanke by order dated 21.06.2008, on the following grounds: (a) According to R.S. Khatiyan Khata No. 129, Plot No. 746, area 4.90 acres is gairmajurua malik khata land. (b) In the Demand Register-II, the name of Saraswati Devi was entered in respect of the aforesaid land. (c) The demand has been postponed. (d) Pendency of the proceeding under Section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 5. Against the said order of Circle Officer, petitioner preferred W.P.(C). No. 6093 of 2008 before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court by its order dated 28.07.2009, was pleased to remand the matter back with a direction to the Circle Officer to take a fresh decision on merit after giving copy of the documents upon which the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are relying upon. In compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order, the mutation case was again heard and during the pendency of the said case, a copy of order dated 07.02.2007, passed by learned Additional Collector in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1982-1983/ Case No. 8 of 2006-2007, by which the learned Additional Collector, without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner, cancelled the settlement without considering letter no. 1043 dated 24.10.1986, issued by the Under Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and thereafter, petitioner came to know that the settlement made by the Ex-Landlord to Sri Brajkishore Dubey was cancelled without impleading the petitioner and hearing him, who had purchased the said land from Sri Dubey. 1043 dated 24.10.1986, issued by the Under Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and thereafter, petitioner came to know that the settlement made by the Ex-Landlord to Sri Brajkishore Dubey was cancelled without impleading the petitioner and hearing him, who had purchased the said land from Sri Dubey. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that order dated 07.02.2007, passed by learned Additional Collector, Ranchi and order dated 30.08.2010 are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and passed in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as without impleading the petitioner as party and without hearing him, the said orders have been passed. Learned counsel further argues that while passing the order dated 07.02.2007, the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi has failed to take into consideration the direction given vide letter dated 24.10.1986, issued by Under Secretary that since settlement was done by the Intermediary before 1946 and demand was issued from the Govt.'s record in 1962-1963 and rent is being collected by the State, the settlement is not liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel further argues that while passing order dated 30.08.2010, the learned Circle Officer, Kanke has failed to take into consideration that the possession of petitioner has been found in the proceeding under Section 89 of the CNT Act and the name of the petitioner has already been entered in the draft record of right. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 07.02.2007, passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi and order dated 30.08.2010 passed by learned Circle Officer, Kanke are fit to be quashed and set aside. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Damri Ram Singh & Ors. Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2017 SCC Online Jhar 2713. 7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on enquiry it has been held that the land in question stands recorded as gairmajurwa malik land in the revisional survery record of rights. The class of land in question as recorded in Khatian is parti pathal. Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on enquiry it has been held that the land in question stands recorded as gairmajurwa malik land in the revisional survery record of rights. The class of land in question as recorded in Khatian is parti pathal. The jamabandi of the land in question was created in the in the Register-II in the name of Saraswati Devi. This jamabandi being found illegal and doubtful has been cancelled. The land in question is not in possession of the petitioner. The land is vacant land and as such, the said mutation application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the then Circle Officer, Kanke in terms of order dated 21.06.2008. Aggrieved by cancellation of his mutation application petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to remand the matter back for taking fresh decision. In compliance of the Court's order, the then learned Circle Officer, Kanke heard the petitioner and it has been held that the jamabandi of the land in question created in the name of Saraswati Devi in the Register-II was deleted vide Misc. Case No. 01/82-83; 08/06-07 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same was confirmed vide letter dated 09.06.2008, issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. 8. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submission of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ application. Admittedly, the petitioner or no other person was in possession over the land in question and the said land has vested in the State under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and it is deemed to be in possession of the State Government by way of its statutory right. The so called jamabandi created in the name of vendor of the petitioner, Smt. Saraswati Devi has been cancelled by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same has been confirmed by the State Government. The mutation application in respect of the land in question has been rejected by the then learned Circle Officer, Kanke in terms of order dated 30.08.2010 in Mutation Case No. 1416 R 27 of 2009-10. The mutation application in respect of the land in question has been rejected by the then learned Circle Officer, Kanke in terms of order dated 30.08.2010 in Mutation Case No. 1416 R 27 of 2009-10. Further, the jamabandi of the land in question created in Register-II in name of the vendor of the petitioner being found illegal and doubtful after thorough examination of the Revenue Record has been cancelled by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same has also been confirmed by the State Govt. neither the vendor of the petitioner nor the petitioner ever came in possession over the land in question. The land has been vested in the State free from all encumbrances under the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and it is deemed to be in possession of the State Govt. by way of its statutory right. 9. Further, against the cancellation of mutation the petitioner approached this Court and the Hon'ble Court remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for taking a fresh decision in which the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing. However, during the pendency of the said mutation case, a copy of order dated 07.02.2007, passed by learned Additional Collector in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1982-1983/ case No. 8 of 2006-2007, by which the learned Additional Collector, has cancelled the settlement arrived between the petitioner and his vendor, has been received by the concerned Circle Officer and upon receipt of the said order, the Circle Officer vide order dated 30.08.2010 was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner for mutation of the land in question. 10. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to him as at the time of hearing the petitioner has failed to produce any documents showing his possession over the land. 11. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions this Court is in agreement with the orders dated 07.02.2007, passed by learned Additional Collector and order dated 30.08.2010, passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.