Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1119 (JHR)

Ghuda Bhagat @ Bhura Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2022-09-07

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the common order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no.2) in S.A.R Revision Nos. 97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 whereby the said revision cases preferred by the petitioner’s father namely Birsa Oraon have been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga (the respondent no.3) in S.A.R Appeal No.15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and S.A.R Appeal No. 16R-15 of 1999-2000 whereby the orders dated 30.08.1999 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector-cum-Special Officer, S.A.R., Lohardaga (respondent no.4) in S.A.R Case No. 57 of 1995 and S.A.R Case No. 58 of 1995 respectively have been set aside. 2. I.A. No. 6728 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for confining the prayer made in the writ petition to the extent of challenging the common order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 in S.A.R. Revision No. 97 of 2000 as well as order dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 15 R-15 of 1999-2000. 3. Since the respondent no. 2 has passed the common order dated 20.12.2021 clubbing S.A.R Revision Nos. 97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 filed against the orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R Appeal No. 15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and S.A.R Appeal No. 16R-15 of 1999-2000, the petitioner is not required to confine the prayer as mentioned in I.A. No. 6728 of 2022. Hence, there is no need to pass any order in the said interlocutory application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that S.A.R. Case No. 57 of 1995 was filed by the father of the petitioner namely Birsa Oraon against one Chhatraman Ahir for restoration of land appertaining to Khata No. 19, Plot No. 598, Mouza-Budka measuring an area of 0.49 acre whereas S.A.R Case No. 58 of 1995 was filed by him against Chama Ahir for restoration of land appertaining to Khata No. 19, plot nos. 598, 599, 498, Mouza-Budka measuring area of 0.75 acre, 0.05 acre and 0.49 acre respectively claiming that due to non-payment of rent to the ex-landlord, the aforesaid lands were settled to the members of non-tribal (the opposite parties of the aforesaid cases) who are in illegal possession of the same. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4, vide orders dated 30.08.1999 allowed both the land restoration cases in favour of the petitioner’s father and subsequently possession of the same was also delivered to him. Aggrieved thereby, the descendants of Chhatraman Ahir and Chama Ahir (the private respondents) preferred two separate appeals being S.A.R Appeal No.15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and 16R-15/1999-2000 before the respondent no. 3 which were disposed of by the said respondent vide orders dated 12.09.2000 setting aside the orders dated 30.08.1999 passed by the respondent no. 4 holding that the respondent of the said appeal i.e. the petitioner’s father could not produce any evidence as to how his lands were taken over by the then ex-landlord and further held that disputed lands were in possession of the appellants. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father preferred S.A.R. Revision No.97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 before the respondent no. 2 against the orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3, however the said revision applications have also been dismissed vide common order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 holding that the S.A.R. applications are hit by the provisions of res-judicata and the claims of restoration of the lands in question are also time barred. It is also submitted that the claim of the respondents are solely based upon ‘Sada Hukumnama’ which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law, on the other hand the name of ancestor of the petitioner was entered into the R.S. record of rights. The order passed by the respondent no.2 is also bad and non-est in the eye of law as the same has been passed in favour of dead persons. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question as the same was delivered through process of court to the petitioner’s father in the year 1999. 5. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to G.A.-II appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question as the same was delivered through process of court to the petitioner’s father in the year 1999. 5. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to G.A.-II appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, submits that in the R.S. Record of Rights, the land in question was recorded in the name of Gondey Oraon as “Dakhalkar for five years” and thus Gondey Oraon was a non-occupancy raiyat. Hence, the interest upon the said land was not inheritable. It is further submitted that the land in question was acquired by the private-respondents in the year 1951 by way of settlement through unregistered Hukumnama executed by the ex-landlord. Earlier, a land restoration case i.e., S.A.R Case No. 80 of 1978-79 was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga which was dismissed observing that there was no violation of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The land in question had been decreed in favour of ex-landlord on 30.04.1937 in terms with order passed in Title Suit No. 248 of 1936 and subsequently the ex-landlord had got delivery of possession through the process of law in Execution Case No. 824 of 1937. The ex-landlord had settled the lands being plot no. 498 in favour of Chhatraman Mahto and plot nos. 598 and 599 in favour of Chama Mahto. The said lands were also respectively mutated in their names and they were paying rent to the Government regularly. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. It appears that S.A.R Case No. 57 of 1995 and S.A.R Case No. 58 of 1995 were filed by the petitioner’s father against Chatraman Ahir and Chama Ahir respectively for restoration of the lands in question, which were allowed in his favour and the said lands were also restored to him. However, in appeals, the respondent no.3 reversed the orders of restoration passed by the respondent no.4 holding that the transfer of the lands was made in the year 1951 by ‘Sada Hukumnama’ by the ex-landlord and since then the lands were in possession of the private respondents/their ancestors and the rent were also being paid to the government regularly. However, in appeals, the respondent no.3 reversed the orders of restoration passed by the respondent no.4 holding that the transfer of the lands was made in the year 1951 by ‘Sada Hukumnama’ by the ex-landlord and since then the lands were in possession of the private respondents/their ancestors and the rent were also being paid to the government regularly. It was further observed that in the year 1979, restoration application filed by the petitioner’s father for the same land was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga and as such the principle of res-judicata was also applicable in the said appeals. Further, the respondent no. 2 has held in the said revision cases preferred by the petitioner’s father that the recorded tenant namely Gondey Oraon was a non-occupancy raiyat for five years which does not confer any raiyati right to him. He has further observed that the lands were transferred to the ex-landlord through the process of the court in Title Suit no. 248 of 1936 and Execution Case No. 824 of 1937. Subsequently, the lands in question were settled to the ancestors of the private respondents in the year 1951. Thereafter, Jamabandis were also created in their names and since then they/their descendants are in possession of the same paying rent to the Government regularly. It has also been held that the recorded raiyat namely Gondey Oraon was non-occupancy raiyat only for five years which does not confer any hereditary right. 8. The petitioner is claiming title over the said lands merely on the basis of entry of name of his ancestor namely Gondey Oraon in the R.S. Record of Rights. However, as per the orders passed in the land restoration cases, the own statement of the applicant was that he failed to pay rent of the said land due to which the ex-landlord took possession of the same and settled it with the ancestors of the private respondents. Though the land was claimed to have been settled in the year 1951 by way of ‘Sada Hukumnama’, it is well settled principle of law that the title of the transferee has to be recognized if transfer has been made by way of ‘Sada Hukumnama’ and the transferee has been in long possession of the said land by paying rent to the Government. That apart, name of Gondey Oraon was recorded as “Gair Dakhalkar” in the R.S. Record of Rights for five years and in view of Section 41 of the Act, 1908, a non-occupancy raiyat is liable for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent or after expiry of the period of tenancy. Moreover, the land was transferred to the ex-landlord through the process of the court vide decree dated 30.04.1937 prepared in the Title Suit no. 248 of 1936 and Execution Case No. 824 of 1937. Thus the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was illegally transferred to the ancestors of the private respondents, has no leg to stand. It further appears that S.A.R. Case No. 80 of 1978-79 was earlier filed by the petitioner’s father before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga for restoration of the said lands, however the same was dismissed and thus the present S.A.R. cases are also barred by res-judicata. The another aspect of the matter is that the ancestors of the private respondents were in possession of the land for about 50 years till they were dispossessed after the orders passed in aforesaid S.A.R. cases and the petitioner/his ancestor was out of possession of the said land for more than 60 years. Thus, the said land restoration cases were filed after an unreasonable delay. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Revision Nos. 97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 as well as orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R Appeal No. 15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and S.A.R. Appeal No. 16R-15 of 1999-2000. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. I.A. No. 6728 of 2022 also stands disposed of.