Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018
------
Ranchi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at Gomia, P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro, through its Director, Meghnath Sahu, Son of late Tileshwar Sahu, resident of near Indra Gandhi Chowk, Upper Chutia, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi. ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
3. Circle Officer, Bundu Anchal, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. ... Respondent
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Akash Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA IV
Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA IV
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though this Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia with a prayer to quash several orders but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner confines his prayer to quash the portion of the order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-4) of this Writ Petition by which the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No.6R15 of 2015-16, though dismissed the revision at the admission stage itself but simultaneously directed the Circle Officer to make elaborate enquiry with regard to the caste of the vendee of applicant/respondent and also observed that if upon enquiry it is found that 1 W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018 the vendees of the applicant/respondent are by caste Munda, the Circle Officer may opt appropriate legal remedy under the provisions of The Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the descendants of the recorded tenant came in possession of the land in question and by virtue of a registered sale- deed dated 08.05.2013, they sold and transferred the land in question to the writ petitioner-which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act; measuring an area of 78 decimals. The caste of the vendor was mentioned as 'Raj Bhuinyan'. 'Raj Bhuinyan' is neither within the list of Schedule Tribes nor Schedule Caste/backward classes the list of Schedule Tribes of the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner applied for mutation. The same was rejected by the Circle Officer. The petitioner filed Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2014-15. The L.R.D.C., Bundu allowed the appeal and directed the respondent No.3- Circle Officer to enter the name of the petitioner in Register-II and issued rent receipts in the name of the petitioner. The State filed a revision under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide Mutation Revision No.6R15 of 2015-16. The Additional Collector, Ranchi by its order dated 04.09.2015 dismissed the revision at the admission stage itself after observing that 'Mutation authorities are not supposed to deal with the complicated question of right, title and interest of one or other' and no ground has been assigned by the revision petitioner which could render the order impugned before the Additional Collector, Ranchi to be unsustainable. Hence, the revision is not fit for admission and dismissed the same but even after dismissal of the revision, went on to direct the Circle Officer to make an elaborate enquiry with respect 2 W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018 to the caste of the vendee and may opt appropriate legal remedy under the provisions of The Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the later part of the said order passed in the revision is illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as the Circle Officer has not been vested with the power to make enquiry with regard to caste of the recorded tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nityanand Sharma & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 576 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:-
"15. It is for Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule and include in and exclude from the Schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for the State, District or region and its declaration is conclusive. The Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. It would thus be clear that for the purpose of the Constitution, "Scheduled Tribes" defined under Article 366(25) as substituted (sic) under the Act, and the Second Schedule thereunder are conclusive. Though evidence may be admissible to a limited extent of finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned, the Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe." (Emphasis supplied)
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 587 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:-
"16. There is no dispute on the proposition that if the Presidential Notification does not contain any specific class or tribe or a part of, then it is for Parliament to amend the law and the schedule and include in and exclude from the schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for the State. The courts must read the lists of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 341 and 342 read with Articles 366(24) and (25) as they find them and accept their ordinary meaning. Neither the Government nor the judiciary 3 W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018 can add or subtract to the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But, the Court would have the limited jurisdiction to the extent of finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the schedule concerned. To that limited extent, the court would have the jurisdiction but, otherwise, the court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or parts thereof or group of such castes or tribes." (Emphasis supplied) and submits that a community cannot be declared as a Schedule Tribe unless it is declared by a Presidential Notification.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this case the undisputed fact remains that the caste of the vendor of the petitioner has been recorded in the khatiyan as 'Raj Bhuinyan'. It also remains undisputed that 'Raj Bhuinyan' has not been notified by a Presidential Notification declaring the said community to be a Scheduled Tribe. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi failed to keep in mind the settled principle of law that in a mutation proceeding, only factum of possession is required to be enquired by State authority or its machineries and certainly the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing an enquiry with regard to the caste of 'Raj Bhuinyan' as 'Munda', hence 'Raj Bhuinyan' is a member of Schedule Tribe. No permission is required under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 nor is there any bar in transferring the land in question by them in favour of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi after dismissing the petition ought not have passed any order beyond the scope of Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this writ petition. Learned 4 W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018 counsel for the respondents submits that the Circle Officer on an enquiry found that the owner of the land in question stands recorded as caste 'Raj Bhuinyan'. The Circle Officer, Bundu has treated the vendors as the members of 'Munda' by caste though inadvertently in page-8 of the counter-affidavit it has been mentioned that the Circle Officer treated the vendees as the members of 'Munda' by caste. It is further submitted that though in para-7 of the counter- affidavit it has been mentioned that on enquiry it has been held that the land in question stands recorded as caste 'Raj Bhuinyan' or 'Munda' but in fact, the same is an incorrect statement and the recorded caste stands only as 'Raj Bhuinyan'. It is next submitted that after enquiry, the Circle Officer came to know that 'Raj Bhuinyan' is none other than 'Munda' which caste is a Schedule Tribe. Hence, as per the direction of the Additional Collector, Ranchi appropriate action against the petitioner under the provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for restoration of the land in question to the recorded tenants is required. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition, hence, the same be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nityanand Sharma & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) has in no uncertain manner, observed that the Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. The undisputed fact remains that in the concerned record, the caste of the vendor has been mentioned as 'Raj Bhuinyan'. In view of the settled principle of law, certainly the Circle Officer or the Additional Collector has no power to declare synonym 'Munda' as equivalent to 'Raj Bhuinyan' and conclude that 'Raj 5 W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018 Bhuinyan' is a Scheduled Tribe specified in Presidential Order. Further, since the Additional Collector was exercising the power under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 wherein he has rightly observed that the Mutation authorities are not supposed to deal with the complicated question of right, title and interest of one or other and no ground has been assigned by the revision petitioner which could render the order impugned before the Additional Collector, Ranchi to be unfit or unsustainable and went to dismiss the revision, certainly he has committed a perversity by going beyond the scope of Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 by directing that the Circle Officer may opt appropriate legal remedy under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
9. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the portion of the order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-4) of this Writ Petition by which the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No.6R15 of 2015-16 dismissed the revision at the admission stage itself but simultaneously directed the Circle Officer to make elaborate enquiry with regard to the caste of the vendee when the vendee is a company and it has no caste as such and further to opt for appropriate legal remedy under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is quashed and set aside.
10. This Writ Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 6