Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 799 (JHR)

Nandlal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-06

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2025
ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29 th November, 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (respondent no. 2) in Miscellaneous Case No. 65/2022 (Annexure -4), whereby the application filed by the petitioner to provide security for demarcation of his land appertaining to Khata No.9, Plot No.118 measuring an area of area of 8.5 decimals and Khata No.9, Plot No.116 measuring an area of area of 6 decimals situated at village- Labga, P.O.- Balkurdra, Block- Patratu (hereinafter to be referred as the “said land”) as well as for construction of boundary wall over the same has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to provide security during demarcation of the said land and construction of boundary wall over the same, as the respondent no.4 with the help of some anti-social elements is creating disturbance to the petitioner over the said land withrespect to his peaceful possession 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner had purchased several plots of Khata No.9, Village-Labga measuring total area of 2.63 acres in the name of petitioner and his elder brother Triveni Mahto from one Devaki Mahto vide sale deed no.1067 dated 27 th March, 1957. The said land was also mutated in the name of petitioner and his elder brother and they paid rent to the Government for which rent receipts were also issued in their names. 3. It is further submitted that one Dhanu Mahto @ Ghanu Mahto started claiming the said land on the basis of a manufactured sale deed said to be executed by the elder brother of the petitioner Triveni Mahto in his favour on 11 th December, 1959. The petitioner having come to know about the said manufactured sale deed, filed a title suit being Title suit No. 50 of 1994 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 24 th September, 1998 declaring the sale deed No.3740 dated 11 th December, 1959 null and void. 4. The petitioner having come to know about the said manufactured sale deed, filed a title suit being Title suit No. 50 of 1994 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 24 th September, 1998 declaring the sale deed No.3740 dated 11 th December, 1959 null and void. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Collector Land reforms, Hazaribagh for cancellation of the Jamabandi running in the name of Ghanu Mahto @ Dhanu Mahto or his legal heirs on the basis of forged sale deed No.3740 dated 11 th December, 1959 as the same was declared null and void by the learned Munsif, Hazaribagh vide judgment dated 24 th September, 1998 passed in Title Suit No.50 of 1994. 5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh vide its order dated 22 nd August, 2007 passed in C.R.R. Case No. 05/2006- 07 cancelled the Jamabandi running in the name of Ghanu Mahto @ Dhanu Mahto and others including the respondent no.4-Khageshwar Mahto. The petitioner filed various representations before the respondent-authorities including the respondent no.2 for providing security so as to enable him to get measurement of the said land done and the boundary wall over the same be constructed. However, his representations were not responded by the respondent no.2. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved with the said situation filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2033 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 28 th June, 2022, directing the respondent no.2 to pass necessary order in accordance with law after verifying the suit land personally. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.626 of 2022 against the respondent no.2 alleging wilful violation of the order dated 28 th June, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.2033 of 2020. In the said contempt case, the respondent no.2 came up with the order 29 th November, 2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 65 of 2022 and submitted that the said order was passed by him in compliance of the order dated 28 th June, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.2033 of 2020. Thereafter, the said contempt case was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the order dated 29 th November, 2022 passed by the respondent no.2 in Misc. Case No.65 of 2022. 7. Thereafter, the said contempt case was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the order dated 29 th November, 2022 passed by the respondent no.2 in Misc. Case No.65 of 2022. 7. It is also submitted that impugned order passed by respondent no.2 is based on a cryptic report submitted by the respondent no.3 vide its letter No. 2805 dated 10 th October, 2022 mentioning inter alia that the said land was in possession of the respondent no. 4 which was contrary to the earlier report submitted by him. In fact the petitioner has been continuously paying rent to the revenue authorities which suggests that he is in possession of the said land. Moreover, though the respondent no.4 had appeared before respondent no.2 in Miscellaneous Case No.65 of 2022, however, he neither filed any application claiming possession or title over the said land nor filed any document to substantiate his possession over the said land. The petitioner has the lawful right over his property as guaranteed under Article-300A of the Constitution of India and the respondent-authorities are legally bound to protect his right. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the respondent no.2 has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner filed for providing security to demarcate the said land as well as to construct boundary wall over the same as he has not been found in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the revenue-authorities have no power to deliver possession of land to anyone without order of the competent court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation running in the name of the petitioner suggests his possession upon the said land and, thus, the respondent no.2 was not right in denying security to the petitioner for demarcation of the said land and for construction of boundary wall over the same. 11. Pursuant to the order dated 28 th June, 2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.2033 of 2020, the respondent no. 2 initiated Misc. Case No. 65 of 2022, wherein a report was called from the respondent no. 3. 11. Pursuant to the order dated 28 th June, 2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.2033 of 2020, the respondent no. 2 initiated Misc. Case No. 65 of 2022, wherein a report was called from the respondent no. 3. The respondent no.3 submitted his report vide letter no.2805 dated 10 th October, 2022 stating inter alia that the petitioner was not found having physical possession of the said land, rather the same was in possession of the respondent no.4 (Khageshwar Mahto). Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner in the garb of seeking direction upon the respondent-State to provide security for demarcation of the said land as well as construction of boundary wall over the same, in fact, intends to get delivery of physical possession of the said land which can only be done by the order of a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 12. It is further evident that after getting the decree in the Title Suit No.50 of 1994, the petitioner had filed execution case, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that the decree was inexecutable in absence of any order with respect to delivery of possession in the said title suit. Thus, even after the order passed in Title Suit No.50 of 1994, the petitioner was not delivered possession of the said land. 13. Even if the order passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 1994 has attained finality, the same does not empower the revenue- authorities to proceed for executing the said order by delivering the possession of the said land in favour of the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that if the manner is prescribed for doing a certain thing, then the same must be done in that particular manner and not otherwise. 14. The revenue authorities cannot usurp power of the civil court and to act as an executing court so as to order delivery of possession of any property. An order for land demarcation can only be passed by the revenue authorities when there is a confusion or uncertainty regarding boundary of a piece of land, however, in the garb of utilising that power, they cannot be allowed to decide bona fide dispute of title and possession between the parties related to any land. 15. An order for land demarcation can only be passed by the revenue authorities when there is a confusion or uncertainty regarding boundary of a piece of land, however, in the garb of utilising that power, they cannot be allowed to decide bona fide dispute of title and possession between the parties related to any land. 15. In view of the discussions as made hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 29 th November, 2022 passed by the respondent no.2, so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction seeking delivery of possession of the said land in his favour.