Jharkhand High Court
Md. Julfan Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 22 March, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(C) No. 5365 of 2014
Md. Julfan Ansari .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
2.Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi.
3.Circle Officer, Nagri Circle, Nagri, Ranchi. .. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the respondent(s)/State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
......
23/ 22.03.2022. Heard, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Verma, appearing on the instruction of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Niraj Kishore and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III for the State.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel has submitted, that the instant Writ Petition has been preferred by petitioner- Md. Julfan Ansari, on 08.10.2014 for quashing the entire Misc. Case No.7/2010-11, T.R. No.94/2010-11 (Annexure-
16) pending in the Court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi, purported to be an order of initiation of proceeding under Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, in relation to the lands appertaining to Plot Nos.496, 718 of Khata No.383 of Khewat No.2 of Village- Pundag, Thana No.228 at Ranchi.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far merit of the case is concerned and in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. [C] No.1119 /2006, which was affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal by this Hon'ble Court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the entire proceeding of cancellation of jamabandi has already been quashed. As such, initiation of proceeding by the State against the petitioner be quashed as the same is against the principles of natural justice.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that it is unfortunate to submit, that the matter which has already been adjudicated and issues therein has already been decided up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner, but in spite of such affirmation by the Hon'ble Apex court, the second round of litigation has been initiated with respect to the same land by the State of Jharkhand, under the garb of proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Jharkhand Land Reforms Act,1950. It has been further submitted, that the State of Jharkhand has no State Litigation Policy nor they have any respect for -2- judicial orders passed by the learned Single Judge which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and the same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, rather the action of the Respondents- State is contemptuous which requires an initiation of proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has buttressed his argument, stating that initial round of litigation was started when father of the petitioner, namely, Md. Muslim Ansari @ Muslim (now died) S/o Late Ajmat Ansari came up before this Hon'ble Cour, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.12.2005, passed by the Respondent No.2, in Misc. Case No.3/2005-06, whereby the claim of the petitioner to accept cess and the rent against the raiyati land appertaining to Thana No.228 in the District of Ranchi, rejected by the Respondent No.2, the Additional Collector, Ranchi and the same has been forwarded/ recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner and predecessor-in-interest.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that earlier father of the petitioner, namely, Md. Muslim Ansari @ Muslim came before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.2496/2002 seeking a direction upon the Respondent no.3, Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi, to accept cess and issue rent receipts in respect of the lands appertaining to Khata No.383, Plot Nos.718 and 496 recorded in Khewat No.2 situated in the Village- Pundag, in the District of Ranchi, which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in terms of the order dated 12.09.2005, which attains finality and same may be reproduced here-under for better appreciation :-
"The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents particularly respondent No.3, the Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi to accept cess and rent and issue rent receipts in respect of the lands appertaining to Khata no.383, plot nos.718 and 496, khewat no.2 situated at village Pundag in the district of Ranchi.
2. Petitioner's case is that one Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Sahdeo, Ex-intermediary of Khewat no.2, by a grant of Sada Hukumnama in the year 1947, settled the land in question in favour of S. K. Sahamat and S. K. Ajmat of the said village and delivered possession of the said land to them. The said Sahamat and Ajmat, in their turn, executed a registered kabuliat dated 9.1.1947 in respect of the said land and came in possession of the same. Petitioner's further case is that on vesting of the Zamindari under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the ex-landlord submitted return showing the aforesaid two settlees as raiyats. It is alleged that the petitioner being the sole eldest member of the family inherited the raiyati interest of the two settlees in the year 1948. The ex-landlord created a Trust known as Chintamani Trust and all zamindari interests were given to the said Trust. It is contended by the petitioner that the land was mutated in the name of his ancestors and their names were entered in Register-II and correction slips were issued in the years, 1982-84 but for the reasons best known to the respondents no rent receipts were issued. Petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have raised claim over the land in question on the ground that the same vested in the State of Bihar.
-3-3. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have disputed the genuineness of the registered kabuliat and the oral settlement and have also asserted that no rent receipts were issued from the years 1955 to 1982.
4. Petitioner's case of coming in possession over the land in question by virtue of the alleged settlement made in the year 1947 and their subsequent possession, have not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Possession always follows title. The creation of Jamabandi in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner can also not be disputed for the reasons that in the notice issued by the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No.65/2002-03 creation of jamabandi has been accepted by the respondents. It further appears that in a proceeding initiated of the instance of Ananpurna Devi, a detailed report was submitted in Misc. Case No.1 of 1985 by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ranchi which also, prima facie, supports the case of the petitioner. In my view therefore, the matter needs consideration by the respondents in accordance with law before taking any action in the matter by passing reasoned order on the claim of the petitioner.
5. Since this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not, supposed to go into the question of the right, title, interest and possession of the parties with respect to immovable property. I direct the Additional Collector (Land Reforms), Ranchi to consider the claim of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondents and take a decision by passing reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
6. Needless to say that the additional Collector, before arriving at any decision, may also direct an inquiry by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi. The Additional Collector shall consider all the revenue documents, like jamabandi register. Correction slip, if any issued in favour of the petitioner, and other documents. Till such decision is taken by the Additional Collector, the land in question shall not be settled with any other person.
7. With the above observation and direction this writ application is disposed of. "
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted, that after disposal of the earlier Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.2496/2002 on 12.09.2005, the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.03/2005-06 on 12.12.2005 recommended for cancellation of jamabandi as the same is suspicious appertaining to land of Plot Nos.718 and 496 of Khata No.383 of Khewat No.2, Village- Pundag, Thana No.228 in the District of Ranchi. The said order of the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.03/2005-06 dated 12.12.2005 has been assailed by father of the petitioner in second Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006, which was also allowed in terms of order dated 09.08.2006 and its modification vide I.A. No.2356 of 2006 in terms of the order dated 13.09.2006, which may also be profitably quoted hereunder :-
"In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by respondent No.2 in Misc. Case No.2 of 2005-06 whereby respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner's claim and has forwarded the concerned record to the Deputy Commissioner with his recommendation to cancel the jamabandi running in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.2946 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondent No.3, Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, to accept cess and rent and issue rent receipts in respect of the lands appertaining to Khata No.383, Plot Nos.718 and 496 recorded in Khewat No.2 of Village Pundag, Police Station Ratu, District- Ranchi.
2. The petitioner's claim is that the said land was settled in favour of Sk. Sahamat and Sk. Ajmat by the ex-intermediaries Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Sahdeo in the year 1947 followed by grant of rent receipts and delivery of possession. Said Sk. Sahamat and Sk. Ajmat, in their turn, had executed a registered Kabuliat in favour of the ex-intermediary dated 09.01.1947 in respect of the said land. The petitioner, since thereafter, has been coming in possession. After vesting of the estate under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the ex-intermediaries had filed return showing the said settlees as raiyat in respect of the said land. The petitioner claims to have inherited the said raiyati right being the descendants of the said settlee. The State of Bihar, thereafter opened Zamabandi in the names of the said settlees and their names were recorded in Register-II. Correction slip was issued in the year 1982-83. The petitioner has been approaching the said respondent No.3 for paying rent, but the same is not being accepted and the petitioner -4- could not get rent receipts. The petitioner thus preferred the said writ application being W.P.(C) No.2496 of 2002. In the said case, the respondents had filed counter-affidavit, disputing the genuineness of the settlement in favour of the said settlees. This Court by order dated 12.09.2005 passed in the said writ petition remitted the matter to the Additional Collector (Land Reforms), Ranchi to consider the petitioner's claim and to take a final decision by a reasoned order after hearing the parties. The impugned order has been passed in purported compliance of the said order.
3. The Additional Collector, by his order dated 12.12.2005 passed the impugned order observing that the land in question was recorded as gairmazaurua malik in the record of rights and that a registered kabuliat was executed by Sk. Sahamat and Sk. Ajmat dated 19.01.1947 and that a correction slip was issued in case No.210-R 27 of 1983-84 and that their names are recorded in Register-II. However, he further held that on the comparison of the register he found that the Case No. 4 R 8 of 1983-84 is in the name of one Ramdas Sinha son of Sahdeo Narayan Sinha and the case is related to village Hutar of Burmu Anchal and that the reference of the case number mentioned in Register-II is wrong and that there is no evidence of realization of any revenue from the said persons. The Additional Collector, on that basis, has held the petitioner's jamabandi is doubtful and has recommended for its cancellation.
4. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have supported the said order of the Additional Collector as legal and valid. It has been stated that the Additional Collector, on verification of Register-II has rightly found reference of a different case and the jamabandi has been rightly held doubtful and liable to be cancelled.
5. In the writ application and also in the rejoinder, the petitioner, seriously, contested the genuineness of the basis of report and observation of the Additional Collector and existence of the entry of the said Case No.4 R 8 of 1983-84 from which the entry was alleged compared and found doubtful. In view of the said statement made in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, this Court, by order dated 29.06.2006, directed the respondents to produce the case record of Misc. Case No.4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84 in original.
6. When the case was again taken up on 20.07.2006, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Standing Counsel (Land Ceiling) stated in the Court that no such record is available in the concerned Anchal Office. Since the Additional Collector had mentioned that he had compared the record of Case No.4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84, he was directed to appear in person and to produce the said record from which he had compared the petitioner's entry and on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. The Additional Collector, Ranchi appeared, in person, today and produced some register which has no relation with the case in hand. Learned Additional Collector failed to produce the record of Case No.4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84 from which he had allegedly compared the petitioner's entry in Register-II and found the same doubtful. The respondents, thus, failed to produce the very basis on which the impugned order has been passed. Being without any basis, there is no option than to hold the impugned order as perverse and unsustainable and the same is held accordingly. The impugned order dated 12.11.2005 (Annexure 11) is quashed. It is held that the petitioner, whose name is running in Register-II since 1983-84 is entitled to get rent receipt(s) on payment of rent. The respondent no.3 is directed to accept rent in respect of Plot No.71 and 496, Khata No.383 of Village Pundag and grant proper receipt to the petitioner until the said jamabandi in his name is held illegal or is cancelled by the procedure established by law or by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire arrears of rent in respect of his land said land. If the petitioner pays arrears of rent/ current rent, the same shall be accepted and proper receipt shall be issued to him forthwith. I.A. No.2356 of 2006.
"13.09.2006. In the order dated 9.8.2006, there are some typographical errors and it is, therefore, clarified that in the last line of the first paragraph, in place of 'Police Station- Ratu' it be read as ' Police Station- 'Jagarnathpur'; in the fourth line of the third paragraph, in place of '19.1.1947', it be read as '9.1.1947; in the fifth line of the same paragraph, in place of 'Case no.210- R 27 of 1983-84', it be read as 'Case no.210 R 8 (II)/ 1983-84; in seventh line of the same paragraph, in place of 'Case no.4 R 8 of 1983-84 it be read as Case no.4 R 8 (II) of 1983- 84; in the third line of the fifth paragraph, in place of 'Case no.4 R 8 of 1983-84, it be read as 'Case no. 4 R 8 (II)/1983-84 and in the fourth line of the bottom of sixth paragraph, in place of 'Plot no.71' it be read as 'Plot no.718'.
The order dated 9.8.2006, accordingly, stands modified to the extent mentioned above. I.A. No.2356 of 2006 stands disposed of."
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it can only be possible in the State of Jharkhand as in earlier litigation preferred by father of the petitioner, namely, Muslim Ansari @ Muslim in W.P. [C] No.1119 of 2006 and the same was decided on 09.08.2006. Para-6 of the judgment passed in W.P. [C] No.1119 of 2006, may profitably be quoted -5- hereunder :-
"6.When the case was again taken up on 20.07.2006, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Standing Counsel (Land Ceiling) stated in the Court that no such record is available in the concerned Anchal Office. Since the Additional Collector had mentioned that he had compared the record of Case No.4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84, he was directed to appear in person and to produce the said record from which he had compared the petitioner's entry and on the basis of which the impugned order has been been passed. The Additional Collector, Ranchi appeared, in person, today and produced some register which has no relation with the case in hand. Learned Additional Collector failed to produce the record of the Case No.4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84 from which he had allegedly compared the petitioner's entry in Register-II and found the same doubtful. The respondents, thus, failed to produce the very basis on which the impugned order has been passed. Being without any basis, there is no option than to hold the impugned order as perverse and unsustainable and the same is held accordingly. The impugned order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure-11) is quashed. It is held that the petitioner, whose name is running in Register-II since 1983-84 is entitled to get rent receipts on payment of rent. The respondent No.3 is directed to accept rent in respect of Plot No.71 and 496, Khata No.383 of Village Pundag and grant proper receipt to the petitioner until the said jamabandi in his name is held illegal or is cancelled by the procedure established by law or by a Court of competent jurisdiction ."
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even then the Additional Collector has again initiated, the 3rd round of the proceeding irrespective of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No.474 of 2006 in terms of the order dated 15.10.2008. The aforesaid order of the L.P.A. No.474 of 2006 dated 15.10.2008 has also been assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8279/2009 and the said SLP was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.05.2009.The entire memo of the said SLP has been brought on record by the petitioenr by way of supplementary affidavit dated 24.08.2015 as Annexure-22 [at running page 256 of the brief].Even though, after the order of affirmation by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the revenue authorities have initiated a different proceeding vide his Letter No.3634 II dated 26.08.2010 by the Additional Collector, Ranchi directing the Circle Officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, with respect to six acres of land of Mouza- Pundag, Khata No.383, Plot Nos.718 and 496.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the order of the Additional Collector, Ranchi clearly shows that the act of disobedience of the earlier judgement with respect to the same land up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and has no respect for the judgment affirmed up to the Supreme Court and the observation recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in terms of the order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has thus, submitted, that this is now the 3rd round of litigation, which has been thrown -6- upon the petitioner by the Additional Collector, Ranchi, who has failed to produce the documents before the Hon'ble Court in previous litigation with regard to Case No. 4 R 8 (II) of the year 1983-84 and the same has been observed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in terms of the order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006, as referred above.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that counter-affidavit has been filed on 11.03.2015 on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by Sri Baidyanath Kamti, S/o Chintamani Kamti, the then Circle Officer, Nagari, Ranchi wherein it has been categorically stated that the name of Sheikh Sabmat and Sheikh Ajmat are not mentioned in the said return and the land in dispute was not settled with the said Sheikh Sabmat and Sheikh Ajmat ,as such, the instant Writ Petition may be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. para-9 of the Counter-affidavit may profitably be quoted hereunder: -
"9. That the petitioner is claiming the land in dispute on the basis of Kabuliyat dated 09.01.1947 executed by Sheikh Sabmat and Sheikh Ajmat and Sada Hukumnama issued by the Ex-landlord on 05.02.1948. After vesting of jamindari it was necessary for the Ex-landlord to show the name of the raiyats to whom the Ex-landlord had settled the 'Gair Marua' land before the jamindari abolition. But in this case, the Ex-landlord of Mouza- Pundag was Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo and in 1948 he created Devi Chintamani Trust. He filed the Jamindari Return in the name of Chintamani Trust. A copy of the return filed by the Ex-landlord has been obtained from the Additional Collector, Gumla and this is also available in the District Revenue Section, Ranchi. The Additional Collector, Ranchi has informed the Circle Officer, Ratu vide letter no.3397 dated 17.12.2008 that the Ex-landlord had filed return in the name of Chintamani Trust in respect of the 'Gair Mazrua' land of Mouza- Pundag, Khata No.383 in which the name of only six raiyats are mentioned to which the Ex-landlord had settled the 'Gair Mazrua' lands. The name of Sheikh Sabmat and Sheikh Ajmat are not mentioned in the said return and as such it is quite clear that the land in dispute was not settled with the said Sheikh Sabmat and Sheikh Ajmat. Thus, no compensation of the land in question was paid to the Ex-landlords ."
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record, it appears to this court that in pursuant to the order dated 12.09.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.2496 of 2002, the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.03/2005-06 on 12.12.2005 has again recommended for cancellation of jamabandi as the same is suspicious, appertaining to land of Plot Nos.718 and 496 of Khata No.383 of Khewat No.2, Village- Pundag, Thana No.228 in the District of Ranchi. The same was assailed by father of the petitioner in second round of the Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006, which was also allowed in terms of order dated 09.08.2006 and its modification vide I.A. No.2356 of 2006 in terms of the order dated 13.09.2006.Further, the order of W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006 was assailed by the State of Jharkhand vide L.P.A. No.474 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2008 and the aforesaid order of the L.P.A. No.474 of 2006 dated 15.10.2008 has been assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of -7- India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8279/2009, which was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.05.2009,affirming the order of this Hon'ble Court.
Admittedly, the W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006 which was allowed in terms of order dated 09.08.2006 along with modification vide I.A. No.2356 of 2006 in terms of the order dated 13.09.2006, wherein it has been categorically recorded that the Additional Collector, Ranchi appeared in-person and produced some register which has no relation with the case of the Petitioner and thus failed to produce the record of the Case No.4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84 from which the Additional Collector, Ranchi had allegedly compared the petitioner's entry in Register-II and found the same doubtful. The Single judge on the basis of such recording and in the absence of any chit of evidence quashed the arbitrary action of the Additional Collector, Ranchi, in the aforesaid W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006, as referred above. The same was further assailed by the State, before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court and again before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which attained its finality in favour of Petitioner.
It is pertinent to mention here that after the order of affirmation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8279/2009 preferred by the State of Jharkhand has also been dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.05.2009 and in spite of such dismissal, the revenue authorities have again initiated a different proceeding vide Letter No.3634 II dated 26.08.2010 by the Additional Collector, Ranchi directing the Circle Officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950 with respect to six acres of land of Mouza- Pundag, Khata No.383, Plot Nos.718 and 496, which is against the cardinal principles of law.
It is well settled proposition and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgements has held that once the issue has been decided by the Apex court on a certain set of facts and principle of law, it is binding to all the courts as well as parties to the litigation.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanker Raju v. Union of India reported in (2011) 2 SCC 132 wherein Apex Court has explained the doctrine of binding precedent which is not only binding between the parties to the litigation but also binding for the nation. Para- 12 and 13 is profitably quoted herein -
12. In Ganga Sugar Corpn. v. State of U.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 223 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 90] , at SCC p. 227, para 6 this Court cautioned that, the "judgments of this Court are decisional between litigants but declaratory for the nation". This Court further observed: (SCC p. 233, para 28) "28. ... Enlightened litigative policy in the country must accept as final the -8- pronouncements of this Court ... unless the subject be of such fundamental importance to national life or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that it is wiser to be ultimately right rather than to be consistently wrong. Stare decisis is not a ritual of convenience but a rule with limited exceptions."
13. In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] this Court has enunciated the importance of the doctrine of binding precedent in the development of jurisprudence of law: (SCC p. 766, paras 8-9) "8. Taking note of the hierarchical character of the judicial system in India, it is of paramount importance that the law declared by this Court should be certain, clear and consistent. It is commonly known that most decisions of the courts are of significance not merely because they constitute an adjudication on the rights of the parties and resolve the dispute between them, but also because in doing so they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future cases. In this latter aspect lies their particular value in developing the jurisprudence of the law.
9. The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 has also held that the order passed by the Apex Court is binding on the parties. Para 27 of the judgment is quoted herein: -
27. ....... The statement contained in the order other than on points of law would be binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under
challenge on the principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the Apex Court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave............
In the view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shanker Raju (supra) and Kunhayammed (supra), it appears to this court that the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, is binding upon the Circle Officer and the state authorities. Even though, the Circle officer and the State authorities has initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950, which is against the law and not tenable at this juncture.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya reported in (2014) 11 SCC 694 has held that litigating parties cannot avoid the implementation and cannot go beyond the orders. Para
-13 of the judgement is quoted herein -
"13. We have, on facts, found that there has been a wilful disobedience by the contemnors of the orders passed by this Court, which is nothing but interference with the administration of justice.
Disobedience of an order of a Court, which is wilful, shakes the very foundation of the judicial system and can erode the faith and confidence reposed by the people in the judiciary and undermines the rule of law. The contemnors have shown scant respect to the orders passed by the highest Court of the land and depicted undue haste to fill up the entire seats evidently not to attract better students or recognise merit, but possibly to make unlawful gain, adopting unhealthy practices, as noticed by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481] and various other cases. Once the Court passes an order, the -9- parties to the proceedings before the Court cannot avoid implementation of that order by seeking refuge under any statutory rule and it is not open to the parties to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of those orders."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare reported in (2013) 11 SCC 404 has held that violation of the orders of the court amounts to disobedience and would attract actions or contempt in accordance with law. Para-12 of the judgment is quoted hereunder -
"12. The government departments are no exception to the consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience and would invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No court or tribunal and for that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This Court also expressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. (Ref. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .) (SCC p. 57, paras 90-91)
13. These very principles have to be strictly adhered to by the executive and instrumentalities of the State. It is expected that none of these institutions should fall out of line with the requirements of the standard of discipline in order to maintain the dignity of institution and ensure proper administration of justice."
In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya (supra) and Priya Gupta (supra), it is incumbent upon the State authorities to adhere to the decision rendered by the Apex Court, which is binding on them and state authorities cannot disobey it. This Court has no confusion in observing that the Circle Officers/ Additional Collectors/ Revenue authorities have no respect for the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, as such, they are not only taking law in their hands, rather they are also attracting proceeding under Contempt of Court's Act for disobeying and acting against the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
As such, this court is of opinion that once the matter has already been settled up to the Supreme Court, it would not be proper for the learned Single Judge to pass an order afresh, except that the order of the Single Judge passed in W.P. (C) No. 119/2006 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court -10- as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, revenue authority has no authority under the law to pass any order putting hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner. Since considering the same, that once the order of cancellation of jamabandi has been quashed by the this Court, affirmed by the Division Bench and upheld by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the initiation of proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Co- ordinate Bench has already granted liberty to the State in previous Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006 that State may take legal recourse before the competent court of law, as such, the entire proceeding requires to be quashed.
Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Misc. Case No.7/2010-11, T.R. No.94/2010-11 (Annexure-16) pending in the Court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi is hereby quashed.
However, the respondent(s)- State is duty bound to issue rent receipt and further the State cannot proceed against the petitioner without declaration of title of land, in question from the competent Court having civil jurisdiction, as directed by the Hon'ble Court in terms of order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006.
Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to ensure that rent receipt must be issued in favour of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today and no action can be taken by the State authorities until the competent court of civil jurisdiction declares that petitioner has no right over the land, in question.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed.
However, this Court considering the seriousness of the matter, directs the Revenue authorities i.e. Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Land Revenue, Government of Jharkhand to initiate a departmental proceeding against Sri Baidyanath Kamti, S/o Chintamani Kamti, the then Circle Officer, Nagari, Ranchi, who has taken such plea without agitating the same before the competent court of law.
Further, Sri Baidyanath Kamti, S/o Chintamani Kamti, the then Circle Officer, Nagari, Ranchi and the Additional Collector,Ranchi against whom the Co- ordinate Bench has already observed vide its order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No.1119 of 2006 as well as the Additional Collector, Ranchi who has directed the Circle Officer, Ratu vide Letter No.3634 II dated 26.08.2010 to initiate proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, if they are in service, their accumulated wealth/ properties in the name of these persons/their relatives/ friends shall be examined, in accordance with law, from the date of -11- joining till the date under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as by initiating a departmental proceeding, in accordance with law.
The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand will ascertain the name of the Additional Collector, whose name has been referred in W.P. (C) No. 1119/2006 and the name of the Additional Collector, whose name has been mentioned in Letter dated -3634(ii) dated 26.08.2010 and recommend the case before the Commissioner, Cabinet Vigilance, Jharkhand for assessment of their accumulated assets from the date of their joining till the date of initiation of proceeding.
Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Cabinet Secretary, Vigilance, Jharkhand for initiating proceeding in accordance with law and so as to submit a report to this Court within a period of three months from today.
Let a copy of this order also be communicated through FAX to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand at once.
Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/