Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 292 (JHR)

Narayan Giri v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, S.K.MISHRA

body2023
ORDER : (S.K. Mishra, J.) I. A. No. 11602 of 2022: This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of 41 days in preferring the instant appeal. There is no objection from the respondents. In that view of the matter, the delay of 41 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 4360 of 2022 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 428 of 2022: Heard Mr. Narayan Giri, the appellant in person and learned A.C. to S.C. IV for the State. 2. In this letters patent appeal, the petitioner-appellant has challenged the order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 1263 of 2020 on 06.07.2022. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his ancestors namely, Shivnath Giri was granted a piece of land in 1886 by the Raja of Ramgarh. Later on, he purchased the land for Rs. 44.23/-. When the survey was made in 1910, the Government Officials did not record the name of the ancestors of the petitioner-appellant in the revenue records, but he is in possession of the land. Thereafter, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was promulgated. Section 4 of the said Act provides that all lands of Zamindar shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. There was also provision of settlement of land in favour of raiyats who are in possession of land of the intermediate/Raja/Zamindar. However, the petitioner’s name could not be recorded in the revenue records in 1910. The learned Single Judge hold that the matter has to be decided by competent court and therefore disposed of the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Section 3 A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which reads as follows: “3.A. Vesting of estates and tenures in the State. – (1) Without prejudice to the provision in the last preceding section the State Government may, at any time, by notification, declare that the intermediary interests of all intermediaries in the whole of the State have passed to and become vested in the State. – (1) Without prejudice to the provision in the last preceding section the State Government may, at any time, by notification, declare that the intermediary interests of all intermediaries in the whole of the State have passed to and become vested in the State. (2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so thinks fit to issue, from time to time, a notification of the nature mentioned in sub-section (1) in respect of the intermediary interests situate in a part of the State specified in the notification and, on the publication of such notification, all intermediary interests situate in such part of the State shall have passed to and become vested in the State. (3) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be published in the official Gazatte.” Section 4 A of the Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as follows: “4A. Revision. - The Commissioner of the division may at any time call for and examine the record of any proceeding under clause (h) or clause (hh) for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or order recorded or passed in such proceeding whether before or after the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 and on examining the record, he may, after hearing if necessary, the person concerned. – (a) direct such further inquiry to be made as he may specify; (b) in a proceeding under clause (h), report the matter for orders of Government which may thereupon pass such orders as it may consider necessary; (c) in a proceeding under clause (hh), pass such orders as he may consider necessary; or (d) decline to interfere with the finding or order.” 4. The expression “at any time” has been interpreted by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of “Rengutu Nag Vs. State of Odisha & Others” as per dated 07.07.2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12015 of 2009 has held the power to call for the records by the Director or Commissioner for consideration, who is at par of the Commissioner of Revenue, has been so provided to give relief to some persons who are hard pressed having right without effective forum for remedy. It is also provided that this power is suo motu power which can be exercised by the Commissioner or Director without any application or application of an aggrieved party. The Orissa High Court was considering whether the power under Section 37 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, which is pari materia, with the Section 4 A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The question was therefore raised before the Division Bench is “what should be the reasonable time within which such power should be exercised.” It may be noted that the power may be exercised suo motu by the Commissioner. The Orissa High Court has held in the case of “Siba Muduli Vs. Director, Consolidation and Others” (W.P.(C) No. 3220 of 2019) reported in 2021 SCC Online Ori. 1632, as follows: “13. We are of the firm opinion that reasonable time may extend even to 20 to 30 years also in cases where the facts of the case involved any of the following factual/legal aspects:- (i) When the order impugned is passed on the basis of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation made by a party or based on a fraudulent document; (ii) When the order was passed is inherently without any jurisdiction or is passed by a person who has no authority to pass such an order; (iii) When an order is passed adversely effecting the interest of a minor without being represented by legal guardian and it includes the perpetual minor like deity; (iv) When any Government land or community land has been grabbed by an abuse of process of law; and (v) When the order impugned before the Revisional authority is passed in complete disregard of the provisions of law guiding the field. 14. We further hasten to add here that this list is not exhaustive but is only illustrative. So, we answer the second point that “what is a reasonable time” in approaching the Court, is in fact a question of fact depending on the peculiar facts of each and every case and no strait jacket formula can be provided.” 5. Thus, we held that if a raiyat has right and possession of a land which belonged to the intermediary and vested with the Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, then he may approach the learned Commissioner of the Division for redressal. 6. Thus, we held that if a raiyat has right and possession of a land which belonged to the intermediary and vested with the Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, then he may approach the learned Commissioner of the Division for redressal. 6. In that view of the matter, we hereby modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner-appellant is at liberty to file an application under Section 3 A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act for redressal of his grievance which shall be considered under the light of observation made by us in the preceding paragraphs. 7. This application stands disposed of.