Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 525 (JHR)

Shyam Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-18

ANANDA SEN, SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA

body2023
ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) 1. These two intra-court appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are arising out of common judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 2016 of 2021 and 3370 of 2021. 2. L.P.A. No. 659 of 2022 has been filed by Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia, who are the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 3370 of 2021. Similarly, L.P.A. No. 656 of 2022 has been filed by Binod Kumar Singh, who was private respondent No. 5 of WP(C) No. 2016 of 2021. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both cases. 4. It is the case of the appellants (LPA No. 656 of 2022) that the land pertaining to Khata No. 140, Plot Nos. 1323, 1324, 1333, 1334 to 1338 and 1337/1349 measuring an area of 7.16 acres out of total area measuring 10.88 acres of village Bajra, Thana No. 140, District-Ranchi belongs to the ancestors of the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 2016 of 2021. It is his case that the land was recorded as “Bakast-malik” under Khewat No. 6/2 in R.S. Record of rights in the name of Sitaram Sahu and Thakur Dayal Sahu, both sons of Man Govind Sahu, village-Argora, Ranchi. They happens to be the ancestors of the writ petitioners. After vesting of zamindari, zamabandi of land was opened in the name of recorded tenant. As there was some dispute, a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 379 of 1961 was filed before before the Court of Munsif, Ranchi by one Sita Ram Sahu against Deodutta Singh and Devi Dayal Sahu for declaration of the title in respect of land pertaining to Plot Nos. 1323 and 1324. A permanent injunction was also sought for on the ground that the plots have fallen in their share in the partition suit. Binod Kumar Singh [respondent No. 5 of WP(C) No. 2016 of 2021/ appellant of LPA No. 656 of 2022] filed an application before the Circle Officer, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi for getting the said land mutated in his name on the ground that the the same was purchased by his father, late Roop Narayan Singh from Ex-landlords, namely, Sita Ram Sahu and Thakur Dayal Sahu vide registered sale deed 255 dated 17.1.1938. The said mutation case was dismissed holding that the father of respondent No. 5 was never in possession over the said land. The said mutation case was dismissed holding that the father of respondent No. 5 was never in possession over the said land. Respondent No. 5-Binod Kumar Singh preferred appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector being Mutation Appeal Case No. 13-R-15/2015-16, but the same was also dismissed on 20.4.2017. In the said proceeding, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi vide letter No. 1021 dated 29.8.2016 had reported that it is not possible to verify sale deed No. 255 of Volume No. VI of year 1938. It has been informed that page Nos.133 and 134 have been tampered with. Thereafter, a Mutation Revision was filed by Binod Kumar Singh before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority vide order dated 25.2.2021 reversed the order passed in Mutation Case and the Mutation Appeal and directed to open Zamabandi in the name of Binod Kumar Singh, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Jageshwar Sahu and others preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2016 of 2021 arraying Binod Kumar Singh as respondent No. 5. 5. Similarly, WP(C) No. 3370 of 2021 was filed by Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia praying to set aside the enquiry report submitted by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and also for setting aside letter No. 1205 dated 6.8.2021, whereby a direction has been given not to take any further action in respect of the land in question. It is their case that they had purchased the said lands from Binod Kumar Singh by virtue of sale deed dated 22.3.2021 and 24.3.2021. As impugned order also adversely affected the said petitioners, he has approached this Court. 6. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both appeals submits that the land in question belonged to the ancestors of Jageshwar Sahu and others [writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 2016 of 2021]. They sold the land to the father of Binod Kumar Singh, thus respondent No. 5-Binod Kumar Singh applied for mutation, which was initially dismissed but ultimately allowed. As per him, the title of the land has been transferred by registered sale deed No. 255 dated 17.1.1938, but the learned Single Judge erroneously directed the appellants to approach Civil Court for declaration of their title. As per him, the title of the land has been transferred by registered sale deed No. 255 dated 17.1.1938, but the learned Single Judge erroneously directed the appellants to approach Civil Court for declaration of their title. As per him, after execution of sale deed in favour of the father of Binod Kumar Singh, the landlord has got no right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. As per him, the writ petitioners have not even produced any document to suggest that ever the process of fixation of rent was initiated in their favour after vesting of Zamindari. As per him, the zamabandi opened in the name of Sitaram Sahu and Thakur Dayal Sahu was absolutely bad as neither Form-'Ka' nor Form-'M' was filed before the competent Revisional Authority. The respondent No. 5 prayed for mutation of the land in question on the basis of sale deed No. 255. As per him, the learned Single Judge has wrongly shifted the onus upon respondent No. 5. If the writ petitioners were seriously challenging the sale deed, the responsibility was upon them to approach before the Civil Court and not upon the respondent/appellant. Further the learned Single Judge could not have arrived at the conclusion that deeds are doubtful only on the basis of a letter issued by the District Sub-Registrar. On behalf of Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia, learned counsel Mr. Tewari submits that they had purchased the land from Binod Kumar Singh and there is no doubt about the execution of the said sale deed. He further submits that by virtue of impugned order their title over the land has also been put under a cloud, which is absolutely illegal. 7. After hearing the parties, we find that main dispute is in respect of title and ownership of the land in question. Binod Kumar Singh claimed that his father had purchased the land from Sitaram Sahu and Thakur Dayal Sahu, who happens to be the ancestors of the writ petitioners of WPC No. 2016 of 2021. It is his case that by virtue of sale deed No. 255 executed in the year 1938, the title have been conveyed in favour of his father. Admittedly, the said sale deed is in Volume-VI of the Register at page Nos. 133 and 134, but those pages have been tampered with. 8. It is his case that by virtue of sale deed No. 255 executed in the year 1938, the title have been conveyed in favour of his father. Admittedly, the said sale deed is in Volume-VI of the Register at page Nos. 133 and 134, but those pages have been tampered with. 8. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 3370 of 2021 i.e. Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia are admittedly the purchasers of the land in question from Binod Kumar Singh. Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia can derive perfect title over the land in question only if their vendor i.e. Binod Kumar Singh had acquired a valid title. The title over the property, which Binod Kumar Singh is claiming through his father is itself under cloud. As the sale deed has not been produced, on the contrary, there is document which suggest that the pages of Volume-VI in relation to the said sale deed of land in question has been tampered with. Further, if the said land was zamindari land and the same has been settled or sold by Zamindar, then the Zamindar must have submitted due returns, as per law, which can also throw some light on the said transaction. 9. Thus, we find that there is cloud over the title in respect of the land in question, which first needs to be cleared, then only question of mutating of land in favour of title holder can arise. Though, the mutation does not confer title over the land in question, yet in this case, the mutation has been sought for by Binod Kumar Singh on the basis of title through a sale deed. Thus, it is necessary to first remove all doubts and clear the clouds in respect of the title over the land. 10. So far as the case with regard to Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia is concerned, they can succeed only if Binod Kumar Singh can succeed in establishing his title over the land in question. Thus the learned Single Judge has correctly set aside the order dated 25.2.2021 after holding that the Revisional Authority has not considered the order of respondent No. 3 and 4 and has allowed the revision on the basis of “Sada Panchnama”. Thus the learned Single Judge has correctly set aside the order dated 25.2.2021 after holding that the Revisional Authority has not considered the order of respondent No. 3 and 4 and has allowed the revision on the basis of “Sada Panchnama”. Further the learned Single Judge has appropriately directed the parties to move before the appropriate Civil Court claiming their right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. 11. We find no illegality in the impugned order. Both letters patent appeals are dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the land in question.