Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 8 (JHR)

Sufal Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2021-01-04

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.04.2004, passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela in Land Ceiling Case No. 12 of 2003-04 in terms of which an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") filed by the respondent No. 5 has been allowed. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 22.01.2007, passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 3 of 2004-05, in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2004 has been dismissed. It has also been prayed for quashing the order dated 23.12.2011/ 06.01.2012, passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue in Rev. Case No. 12 of 2007, by which the Revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Act against the order dated 22.01.2007 has been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case in short is that by a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2003, the petitioner purchased 17 decimals of land falling under Plot Nos. 140, 141, 142, Khata No. 19, Than No. 52, situated in village Balrampur, P.S. Gamharia, District Seraikela-Kharsawan from Sambhu Nath Kumhar, MangalKumhar, Brindawan Kumhar and Sudhir Pal. Thereafter, by a registered deed of gift dated 04.08.2003, the petitioner transferred the same to his wife namely, Malti Mandaline. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 16 of the Act, claiming himself to be the co-sharer of the lands described above and the said case was registered as L.C. Case No. 12 of 2003-04. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his show-cause stating that the respondent No. 5 is neither the co-sharer nor the adjoining raiyat. It was further stated that the land in question stood transferred in the name of petitioner's wife prior to filing of the LC Case and as such, the said case itself is not maintainable. It was further stated that the land in question is not an agricultural land rather, there are several pucca houses constructed over the said plots and as such, the nature of the land has changed. The vendors of the petitioner have also appeared in LC Case and supported the case of the petitioner. It was further stated that the land in question is not an agricultural land rather, there are several pucca houses constructed over the said plots and as such, the nature of the land has changed. The vendors of the petitioner have also appeared in LC Case and supported the case of the petitioner. However, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela-Kharsawan (respondent No. 4), without enquiring about the nature of the land, by his order dated 15.04.2004, passed in L.C. Case No. 12 of 2003-04, allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan (respondent No. 3), which was registered as LC Appeal No. 3 of 2004-05 and respondent No. 3 after hearing the parties, by his order dated 22.01.2007 dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the revision was also filed before the respondent No. 2, which was registered as Rev. Case No. 12 of 2007 but the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 23.12.2011/ 06.01.2012 dismissed the said revision of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court. 4. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. The application under Section 16(3) of the Act filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 was not maintainable particularly, in view of the fact that nature of land in question has ceased to be agricultural land and the said land had been transferred by the petitioner prior to institution of LC Case by respondent No. 5. Learned counsel further argues that respondent No. 5 is not a co-sharer of the said land and the onus to prove that the land in question is a joint family property and respondent No. 5 is a co-sharer, was not discharged by him. Learned counsel further argues that it was incumbent on part of respondent No. 4 to enquire about the nature of land as on the date of filing of the LC Case. However, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 ignored the registered sale deed executed by respondent no. 5 in respect of land pertaining to the same khata wherein he asserted his independent share. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. However, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 ignored the registered sale deed executed by respondent no. 5 in respect of land pertaining to the same khata wherein he asserted his independent share. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner was decided by reasoned order concurrently by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Further, the land in question is admittedly an agricultural land. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner purchased the land in question vide sale deed dated 23.05.2003 and after two months of purchase, transferred the said land in favour of his wife by virtue of gift deed dated 04.08.2003, whereas, respondent No. 5 filed application under Section 16(3) of the Act on 05.08.2003, which means one day before filing of the LC Case, the petitioner cunningly transferred the land in question by way of gift deed in favour of his wife just to defeat the provisions of LC Act and accordingly, the conduct of the petitioner itself suggest the ill motive to retain the lands and as such, the order passed by all the answering respondents and also the revision order, cannot be interfered in any manner as there is no irregularity in the orders. Learned counsel further argues that it is a settled principle of law that a purchaser of joint property cannot claim possession rather, he can file a suit for partition and on this score also the petitioner's claim is liable to be rejected. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach before the competent Court for redressal of his grievances. 6. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said orders and as such, no interference is warranted. There is concurrent findings of the Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the purpose of the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act is to prevent fragmentation of holdings. The son of a khatiyani raiyat would be a natural co-sharer and can thus exercise the statutory right of preemption. There is concurrent findings of the Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the purpose of the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act is to prevent fragmentation of holdings. The son of a khatiyani raiyat would be a natural co-sharer and can thus exercise the statutory right of preemption. The preemptor is the son of the vendor and thus, he is the natural co-sharer of the vendor who is the descendent of the khatiyani raiyat of the said plot. Just to frustrate the preemption, the land was transferred. It has been categorically held that the land is agricultural land and no claim has been made on ground of co-sharer or adjacent raiyat. The grounds agitated by the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court and this Court is in fully agreement with the findings given by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela; learned Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawa and learned Member, Board of Revenue. The orders passed by the aforesaid Authorities are hereby upheld. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.