Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 962 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Bajaj v. State of Jharkhand

2024-11-26

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the Respondent to ensure that the revenue records of the Petitioner and his father with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 176, Plot No. 44, admeasuring an area of 23 Kathas, 11 chattak, 25 square feet and 20 katha, 11 chattak, 25 square feet respectively (hereinafter after referred to as the ‘scheduled land’ for the sake of brevity) as contained in Register-II be made visible online. 3. Mr. Parth Jalan Advocate, assisted by Ms. Shivani Jaluka, representing the petitioner submits that the scheduled land is a part of the land falling under Khata No. 176, Thana No. 203, which comprises of Plot No.44 along with the plots within Mouza-Hehal admeasuring a total area of 31.52 acres. This land is recorded in record of rights prepared during the RS Survey (Annexure-1) in the name of the one Ganga Prasad Budhia. Ganga Prasad Budhia sold the entire land admeasuring 31.52 acres (including the scheduled land) to Maharaja Nand Kishore Nath Shahdeo vide a registered sale deed bearing number 6043 dated 10.11.1944. The land was subsequently inherited by the son of the Maharaja namely Arun Nath Shahdeo. Mutation was carried out in the name of the Maharaja in the year 1971. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the land was partitioned between the family members of the Maharaja. In terms of the settlement, 11.02 acres fell in the share of Arun Nath Shahdeo, 7.70 acres fell in the share of Kiran Bala and land admeasuring an area of 6.40 acres each was given to Deepak Nath Shahdeo and Dilip Nath Shahdeo respectively. The scheduled land fell in the share of Arun Nath Shahdeo and his wife. The Petitioner and his father purchased the land, from Arun Nath Shahdeo and his wife namely Kiran Bala vide registered sale deed(s) bearing number 2242 and 2241, both dated 5.02.1974. (Annexure-2). Thereafter, the petitioner and his father applied for the mutation of the lands in their name. The said applications were registered as Mutation Case No. 107/R27/73-74 and 108/R27/73-74 respectively. The said applications were allowed vide order(s) dated 28.02.1974 and accordingly the name of the Petitioner and his father were entered in Register-II and correction slip were issued in their favor (Annexure-3). The said applications were registered as Mutation Case No. 107/R27/73-74 and 108/R27/73-74 respectively. The said applications were allowed vide order(s) dated 28.02.1974 and accordingly the name of the Petitioner and his father were entered in Register-II and correction slip were issued in their favor (Annexure-3). It has been further submitted by the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner that pursuant to the orders dated 28.2.1974, the Petitioner has been regularly depositing rent for the scheduled property. Further, the Petitioner had also obtained a sanction for a building plan from the Improvement Trust, Ranchi in the year 1977 and had constructed a building over it, in which the Petitioner is residing peacefully. The Petitioner is also paying rent and municipal holding tax till 2022-23 (Annexure-4). 5. Learned counsel further submits that in the year October 2022, the Petitioner filed a representation before Respondent No. 4, (Annexure-5) stating the entire land antecedent. The case of the Petitioner is that he was having problems in making payment of the revenue rent online as the revenue records of the Petitioner with respect to the scheduled land was not uploaded/visible online. Accordingly, the Petitioner requested that the revenue records of the Petitioner and his father with respect to the scheduled property be uploaded online to enable him to make payment of the rent revenue rent. When no action was taken on his representation, he obtained a certified copy of the Register-II of the scheduled land (Annexure-6) and filed another representation before Respondent No. 3. However, no action was taken and hence the Petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C) I, at the outset submits that he is also representing SIRD and adopting the Counter-affidavits filed by the Respondent-State. On basis of the counter-affidavit filed on 5th of October 2023, he had submitted that the representation of the Petitioner was forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 for enquiry. It is further submitted that as State Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter referred as SIRD for the sake of brevity) was located beside the scheduled land, a report had also been sought from for SIRD vide letter dated 2.06.2023 to ascertain as to whether SIRD is having any right over scheduled land. 7. It is further submitted that as State Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter referred as SIRD for the sake of brevity) was located beside the scheduled land, a report had also been sought from for SIRD vide letter dated 2.06.2023 to ascertain as to whether SIRD is having any right over scheduled land. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent by way of supplementary counter-affidavits dated 10.01.2024 and 7.05.2024, has further asserted that the scheduled land has been in possession of SIRD since 1954. The Ld. Counsel for the State has thus thrown a dispute to the right, title and interest of the Petitioner by contending that a perpetual lease agreement as entered by the then Maharaja Kumar Nanda K.H.S. Deo and Governor General in Council and the entire land admeasuring an area of 36 acres (including the scheduled land) has been in government possession since 1942. This agreement was also notified by way of letter Bihar and Orrisa Area on 12.11.1946 (Annexure-A). The land was thereafter transferred by the Union of India to the State of Bihar in 1955. In the year 1967, the land was transferred by the State of Bihar to the Public Works Department, Bihar for development officers training center. The transfer of land to the State of Bihar was made after obtained the sanction of the His Excellency, the President of India on 2.07.1955 wherein surplus assets of the War Department were transferred for a consideration, after obtaining concurrence from the Finance Department, Government of India. It has been further submitted that SIRD was set up by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation, Government of India in the year 1964 as one of the four Development Officers’ Training Centers in the year 1954. In the year, the name was changed to ‘Orientation Training Center’ and thereafter to ‘Orientation and Study Center’. In the year 1957, the institute was handed over to the State of Bihar and was renamed as ‘Community Development and Panchayati Raj Training Institute’ and finally in the year 1984, the institute was again renamed as ‘Bihar Institute of Rural Development’. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the letter dated 13.01.2015 and the trace map attached with it, has contended that the scheduled property is in possession of SIRD and also other government offices such as the fire department, central training institute, IGNOU and Hehal Sporting Cricket Academy. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the letter dated 13.01.2015 and the trace map attached with it, has contended that the scheduled property is in possession of SIRD and also other government offices such as the fire department, central training institute, IGNOU and Hehal Sporting Cricket Academy. (Annexure-D). 9. Ms. Rupa Shahdeo, learned counsel for the intervenor filed an interlocutory application being IA No. 4506 of 2024 filed by one Smt. Rupa Nath Sahadeo @ Rupa Sahadeo. It has been contended that the predecessor-in-interest has no right to sell the property to the Petitioner. It has been further submitted that the issue with respect to the right, title and interest of the scheduled property is already sub-judice before the Ld. Civil Court, Ranchi is Title Suits being Original Suit No. 273 of 2024 and 274 of 2024. 10. In backdrop of the above facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has emphatically contented that the prayer in the instant writ petition is limited to the uploading of the already existing mutation entry online, to enable the Petitioner to make payment of revenue rent easily. The same is a clerical and mechanical task and involves no adjudication. The entry of the name of the Petitioner was done by Respondent No. 5, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 vide order dated 28.2.1974 passed in Mutation Case No. 107/R27/73-74 and 108/R27/73-74. The said order has not been assailed before any competent authority and has attained finality. The name of the Petitioner has therefore been running in Register-II since past 50 (fifty) years and accordingly is a ‘long standing jamabandi’. It has been further submitted that the Respondent authorities by not uploading the details of the jamabandi online is actually trying to annul the mutation which stands in the favour of the Petitioner and his father even though they have no jurisdiction to question or annul a long-standing jamabandi under any law. The jurisdiction with cancel such long standing jamabandi is only with the Ld. Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has place reliance on the judgement rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain 2022(3) J.L.J.R.249, which has been also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The jurisdiction with cancel such long standing jamabandi is only with the Ld. Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has place reliance on the judgement rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain 2022(3) J.L.J.R.249, which has been also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been next contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent have admitted that the land was entered in the record of rights prepared during the RS survey in the name of Ganga Prasad Budhia. The mutation entry; name of the vendee i.e. Maharaja Nand Kishore Nath Shahdeo has not been denied by the Respondent. The Respondent have also not challenged the order dated 28.2.1974 passed in Mutation case No. 107/R27/73-74 and 108/R27/73-74. In light thereof, the Respondent cannot deny making mutation entry online based on the existing entries in Register II. Such action by the Respondent amounts to doing something. The reliance placed by the Respondent on the lease deed is of no avail as the record stands otherwise. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that Respondent are well aware that they have no jurisdiction to annul the long standing jamabandi created in the favour of the Petitioner and as such they are arbitrarily resorting to such benefits. Once the jamabandi is created the State cannot deny acceptance of revenue rent. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the documents brought on record by way of the counter-affidavit shows that there are complicated and disputed questions of facts and as such, the issue of mutation cannot be adjudicated while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The creation of mutation entry in the name of the Petitioner is ‘suspicious’ and the same cannot be looked into by this Court. ‘ 12. In rebuttal, the Petitioner had submitted that mutation/revenue records do not confer or extinguish any right. In case the State and/or SIRD is aggrieved by the mutation, they can assail the same by filing a suit before the Ld. Court of competent jurisdiction. It has been vehemently argued that the documents brought forth by the Respondent in their counter-affidavit dated 7.5.24 as Annexure-A is a vague document and carries no description of the land or boundaries. Moreso; the trace map attached with Annexure-D clearly shows that the scheduled land is not in possession of any government entity, department or institution. It has been vehemently argued that the documents brought forth by the Respondent in their counter-affidavit dated 7.5.24 as Annexure-A is a vague document and carries no description of the land or boundaries. Moreso; the trace map attached with Annexure-D clearly shows that the scheduled land is not in possession of any government entity, department or institution. ISSUES. Based on the above contentions, the issues for adjudication before this Court are framed as under:- (i) Whether online entry of Register-II is an independent exercise where the authority has to exercise jurisdiction akin to opening of a new jamabandi? (ii) Whether the authorities can look into issues of right title and interest for the purpose of acceptance of rent with respect to a long standing jamabandi? (iii) Whether the authorities can deny acceptance of rent once jamabandi is created in the name of the Petitioner? 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments made by the parties it is not in dispute that the jamabandi has been running in the name of the Petitioner since 1974. Moreso, the mutation was already running in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner since 1971. Such orders have attained finality as no appeal/revision were moved under the relevant provision of law to annul the same, within the statutory period of limitation. It is trite law, that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled by any authority, except by taking recourse to a civil suit. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of the Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of Ramayan Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2013(3) PLJR533. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under: - “So far the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khiru Gope and two Others vs. The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui and three Others, reported in MANU/BH/0034/1983 : A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121 [: 1983 PL JR 727]. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue”. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue”. 14. The Court is cognizant of the fact that the issue involved in the instant case is not with respect to the cancellation of jamabandi. However, considering the stand taken by the Respondent-State, wherein it has been submitted that the jamabandi of the Petitioner is suspicious; it is necessary for the Court to observe that when revenue authority is not vested with the jurisdiction to annul a long-standing jamabandi, it also has no authority or power to create hinderance with any right associated with it. Moreso, when the exercise of creation/opening of a new jamabandi itself, does not is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial process. Reference in this regard is made to the judgement rendered in the case of Depta Tewari and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (1987) PLJR 1037. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:- “ 8. In my view the Officers passing the orders on mutation matter do not exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial function. They arrive at a decision of possession on the basis of the evidence placed before them including the reports of the officers concerned.” The case at hand is placed at a much better pedestal, as there is an admitted jamabandi in the favour of the Petitioner running since 1974. The Respondent State is only to make the revenue record online. The same is merely a clerical and mechanical process which should have been done as a matter of routine administrative procedure. The State cannot pick and choose the entries which are to be made visible online as such action would smack of gross arbitrariness. The first issue stands answered accordingly. 15. It is trite law that revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and the Circle Officer is not competent to take a decision on the right, title and interest of the parties. This is the consistent view taken in a plethora of judgement, most recently in the case of Koderma Gaushala Samittee vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (16.04.2024 -JHRHC): MANU/JH/0531/2024. Moreso, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments have held that entry in the revenue record has no bearing on the right, title and interest of a person. Reference is made to one such judgement i.e. Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 430. (16.04.2024 -JHRHC): MANU/JH/0531/2024. Moreso, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments have held that entry in the revenue record has no bearing on the right, title and interest of a person. Reference is made to one such judgement i.e. Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 430. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” 16. The objection raised by the Respondent-State is with respect to the right, title and interest of the Petitioner. The Intervenor has also objected to the relief sought by the Petitioner on the ground that the right, title and interest of the vendor of the Petitioner is doubted and the same is currently sub-judice before the Ld. Civil Court. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is not entering into the merits of right, title and interest. If any party is disputing the title of the Petitioner; they are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional civil court, subject to the provisions of law. 17. In light of the above settled position of law, the argument of the Respondent-State and the Ld. Counsel for the intervenor is not acceptable to this Court. This Court is having no hesitation in holding that the circle officer cannot look into issues of right, title and interest while creating a jamabandi in favour of a person. Even factually, the objection raised by the State cannot be considered as the trace-map annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure-D, clearly transpires that the scheduled property is not in the possession of any government institution. Moreso, the concern of SIRD is with respect to Plot No. 43 and 45 within Khata No. 176, while the land of the Petitioner appertains to Plot No. 44 within Khata No. 176. The second issue stands answered accordingly. 18. Lastly, the jamabandi running in the name of the Petitioner and his father has been created in 1974. Once the jamabandi is created, the State cannot deny acceptance of rent and the issuance of rent receipt. This Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Md. The second issue stands answered accordingly. 18. Lastly, the jamabandi running in the name of the Petitioner and his father has been created in 1974. Once the jamabandi is created, the State cannot deny acceptance of rent and the issuance of rent receipt. This Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Md. Zulfan Ansari (L.P.A. Nos. 318 of 2022) has categorically held that the State-authorities have no jurisdiction to deny acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. It is therefore made clear that the inaction on part of the Respondent in making the revenue record of the Petitioner visible is contrary to law. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ petition, is hereby, allowed. Pending I. A., if any, also stands closed The Respondent No. 4 is directed to upload and make visible online the revenue record of the Petitioner and his father with respect to the scheduled land as per the orders dated 28.02.1974 passed in Mutation Case No.107/R27/73-74 and 108/R27/73-74 respectively; so that the title of the petitioner or his father over the scheduled land is not eclipsed because of non-uploading of the same. It goes without saying that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.