Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 29 (JHR)

Sekhar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2022-01-05

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The present case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Khunti (the respondent no. 7) in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2018-19 by which the settlement made in favour of the petitioner’s father has been declared to be illegal and consequently the claim of the petitioner for rectification of the area mentioned in the recent receipts issued by the Circle Officer has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from raising any construction over the petitioner’s land or alternatively to pay appropriate compensation to him under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act, 2013”) in lieu of the land being put in use by the respondents. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the ex-landlord namely Kashinath Ram had settled the land appertaining to Khata No. 39, plot no. 35 measuring area of 2.43 acres, plot no. 29 measuring area of 5.16 acres, plot no. 30 measuring area of 0.21 acre and plot no. 26 measuring area of 4.95 acres (total area 12.75 acres) (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) in favour of the petitioner’s father namely Bahur Ram vide a ‘Sada Hukumnama’ dated 09.02.1946, which was originally recorded as ‘gairmazurwa malik khas’ and accordingly his father came in possession of the said land. On vesting of intermediary interest, the petitioner’s father was found in possession over the said land and accordingly he was assessed to fair and equitable rent. Consequently, the name of the petitioner’s father was entered in Tenant’s Ledger and he was recognized as a raiyat under the State. The father of the petitioner died on 19.07.2006 leaving behind the petitioner and thereafter he came in possession of the said land. The petitioner found that out of 12.75 acres of land, the rent receipt for the revenue year 2010-11 was issued only for 2.75 acres of land and as such he represented the respondent no. 7 on 24.01.2019 annexing all the relevant documents regarding his right, title and interest over the said land and requested him to issue rent receipt for entire 12.75 acres of land, however, no action was taken in this regard. 7 on 24.01.2019 annexing all the relevant documents regarding his right, title and interest over the said land and requested him to issue rent receipt for entire 12.75 acres of land, however, no action was taken in this regard. Finding no alternative, the petitioner approached the Chief Minister’s Jan Samvad vide his application dated 08.02.2019 which was registered as Grievance No. 29917363 dated 08.02.2019 and in consequence of the same, the respondent no. 7 initiated proceeding being Misc. Case No. 03/2018-19 however by way of impugned order dated 24.07.2019, rejected the petitioner’s application. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 7 passed the impugned order without considering the relevant facts or conducting any physical verification. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 7 has exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the said land and holding that the documents produced by him are forged and fabricated. Moreover, the order of the respondent no. 7 indicates that some portion of the said land appertaining to plot nos. 26 and 29 have purportedly been settled with some raiyats, however the same has been done without any notice or information to the petitioner or his predecessor. The said settlees have never been in possession of the respective land settled with them by the respondents. It is also submitted that as a result of the arbitrary and illegal order passed by the respondent no. 7, a “Knowledge City” is proposed to be built over the said land of the petitioner without acquiring the same and paying compensation in lieu thereof. Even no notice was ever served to the petitioner regarding the proposed acquisition. The said action of the respondent no. 7 amounts to forceful dispossession of the petitioner from his immovable property which is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The respondent no. 7 should have referred the matter to the competent authority under the Act, 2013 for proper adjudication instead of embarking himself upon the claim of the petitioner for rectification of the rent receipt. The petitioner cannot be dispossessed from his said land without acquiring the same according to the procedure established by law. The revenue authorities are not competent to decide the complicated question of right, title and interest over an immovable property. The petitioner cannot be dispossessed from his said land without acquiring the same according to the procedure established by law. The revenue authorities are not competent to decide the complicated question of right, title and interest over an immovable property. The proper recourse for the revenue authorities is to challenge the existing entry in Register-II in the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner made an application before the respondent no. 7 for rectification of total area of the said land mentioned in jamabandi register, which was registered as Misc. Case no. 03 of 2018-19 and the same was disposed of by the said respondent vide impugned order dated 24.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s representation. 7. The petitioner has claimed his right and title over the said land on the basis of the ‘Sada Hukumnama’ dated 09.02.1946 which was not accepted by the respondent no. 7 on the ground that the same was executed after the cut-off date i.e. 01.01.1946. The respondent no. 7 also found several defects in the alleged ‘Sada Hukumnama’ produced by the petitioner including that plot no. 26 was wrongly mentioned as coming under Khata no. 30 while the said plot was mentioned in survey khatiyan under Khata no. 39. Apart from that, the first Zamindari receipt was of 08.03.1946 which should have been of the same date of ‘Sada Hukumnama’ i.e. 09.02.1946. The respondent no. 7 accordingly found the said ‘Hukumnama’ to be fake and forged. The respondent no. 7 observed that jamabandi of the said land had been created in Register-II without obtaining any order of the competent authority. It was further observed in the impugned order that the petitioner neither produced any document to show his possession over the said land nor raised objection when the said land was settled to some landless persons of Adivasi community. The respondent no. 7 also observed that the entire area of plot nos. 26, 29 and 30 was acquired for the “Knowledge City Project” and the acquisition for the said purpose had continued for last five years but the petitioner did not raise any objection during the said period. 8. Since the petitioner failed to show any document before the respondent no. 7 also observed that the entire area of plot nos. 26, 29 and 30 was acquired for the “Knowledge City Project” and the acquisition for the said purpose had continued for last five years but the petitioner did not raise any objection during the said period. 8. Since the petitioner failed to show any document before the respondent no. 7 in support of his possession over the said land, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. There were several defects found in ‘Sada Hukumnama’ dated 09.02.1946 which was also rightly not accepted by the respondent no. 7. The land in question was already settled to different raiyats in the year 1988-89 itself and recently the same has been acquired for “Knowledge City Project” over which the construction of ‘Raksha Shakti University’ is going on. The petitioner neither raised any objection at the time when the said land was being settled to landless persons of Adivasi community nor during the acquisition process for “Knowledge City Project” and only after commencement of construction work under the said project, he has raised objection against the same. As such, the present case is not a fit one so as to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 7 in Misc. Case No. 03/2018-19 so as to make interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may however take recourse before the competent court of civil jurisdiction claiming his right and title over the said land, if so advised.