Jharkhand High Court
Dineshwar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 17 June, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008 (3) AIR JHAR R 608
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 3.9.06 (Annexure-5), 10.9.02 (Annexure-3) and 5.12.2000 (Annexure-2).
2. The petitioner claims to be the Raiyat of the land appertaining to R.S Khata No. 194, Plot No. 3683, measuring an area of 41.99 Decimals of Village-Simalia, Thana No. 739, District-Ranchi (hereinafter called as 'the said land').
3. According to the petitioner, the said land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas of the landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Shahdeo in the Revisional Survey Records of Right.
4. The ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Shahdeo had settled 12 Acres of the said land in favour of one Rang Nath Sahu, son of late Raghunandan Sahu of Village-Tikra Toli as far back as on 9.6.1942.
5. Rang Nath Sahu sold an area of 20 Decimals of the said land to the petitioner by virtue of the registered sale deed No. 4313 dated 4.5.1992.
6. Rang Nath Sahu further sold an area of 20 Decimals of the said land to the petitioner's wife Smt. Chanchala Devi by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 7.7.1992. The petitioner came in physical possession of the said land and has been in continuous peaceful possession thereof.
7. Since after the settlement of the said land, the settlee Rang Nath Sahu had been in continuous possession of the said land and rent was assessed by the ex-landlord and he had been paying rent to the ex-landlord. After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1956, rent was assessed in the name of Rang Nath Sahu in Case No. A-29/1955-56 and Jamabandi No. 194/624 was created in the name of Rang Nath Sahu.
8. After purchasing the land, the petitioner applied for mutation in his name in Mutation Case No. 183R27/93-94, before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal. The same was allowed and the name of the petitioner was mutated in respect of the said land. The petitioner claims to be in continuous peaceful possession of the said land having right of ownership and possession.
9. Suddenly on 5.9.97, a notice was issued to the petitioner from the Office of the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi in a proceeding initiated for cancellation of the long running Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Rang Nath Sahu. The petitioner appeared and filed his reply stating all the facts regarding his possession over the said land, mutation of the said land in his name and acceptance of rent by the State-respondents, accepting him as Raiyat and others grounds. But the respondent No. 4 without considering the petitioner's reply, made recommendation for cancellation of the petitioner's Jamabandi by his order dated 5.12.2000 and forwarded the record to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi-respondent No. 3. On receipt of the record, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed his reply stating the entire facts. But despite the same, the respondent No. 3 recommended to the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the petitioner's Jamabandi and directed the respondent No. 4 to prevent sale or purchase or construction over the land in question.
10. The Deputy Commissioner also issued a notice to the petitioner in which the petitioner appeared and stated all the facts. The case was heard at length on 14.1.04. After hearing the Deputy Commissioner kept the order reserved for a long time.
11. Aggrieved by the long pendency, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P(C) No. 1464/2005. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 31.3.05 directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the case preferably within three months, if the same has not already been disposed of.
12. The Deputy Commissioner in purported compliance of the said direction passed the order dated 3.9.06 whereby he has remanded the case with another case to the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi observing that in view of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 17/1997-98, the Jamabandi opened in the name of Rang Nath Sahu be cancelled.
13. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the purchaser of a portion of the said land from Rang Nath Sahu. Though Jamabandi running in his name has not been cancelled by the said order, the cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of his predecessor-in-interest, Rang Nath Sahu, shall directly and adversely affect the petitioner.
14. It has been submitted that there is no valid ground for assailing or cancelling the long running Jamabandi running in favour of Rang Nath Sahu and the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
15. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondents contesting the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that originally the said land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Malik land in the Revisional Survey Records of Right. It was found from the Register-II, Vol. III of Mouza-Simalia that a demand in respect of 64.27 Acres of the said land was opened in the name of Rang Nath Sahu. But no original document was produced in support of the said entry in the name of Rang Nath Sahu. It has been stated that the Jamabandi of the land in question has been created with the object of defeating the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed the impugned order for annulment of the demand running in respect of the land in Question in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. A. proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act for annulment of the demand running in the name of the petitioner was initiated in the Court of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi being Misc. Case No. 225/1997-90/27/2000. The Jamabandi opened in respect of Gair Mazarua Malik land is not legal and proper and as such the impugned orders are legal and justified.
16. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted position that though the land in question has been originally recorded as Gair Mazarua Malik in the Revisional Survey Records of Right, finally framed and published in the year 1930-35, Jamabandi in respect of the said land has been running in the name of Rang Nath Sahu since the date of vesting in the year 1955-56. On the basis of the said Jamabandi and the continuous Register-II, the respondents all along accepted rent and recognized Rang Nath Sahu as Raiyat in respect of the said land for more than five decades. The petitioner is a purchaser of a portion of the said land. After purchasing the said land, he applied for mutation in his name before the Circle Officer. After due enquiry, mutation was allowed in his favour in Mutation Case No. 183R27/93-94 by the order of the Circle Officer, Kanke. He has been also paying rent in respect of the land purchased by him/his wife. The cancellation of long running Jamabandi is, thus, wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any basis. The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to pass orders for cancellation of the settlement under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, without following the prescribed procedure provision of law. Though the land is recorded as Gair Mazarua Malik or Gair Abad Malik in the Revisional Survey Records of Right, the State has recognized the tenancy right of Rangnath Sahu by accepting rent over a period of several decades. His name had been running in the Tenants' Ledger/Register-II maintained by the Anchal Office for such a long time without any objection from any quarter.
17. It has been repeatedly held that a long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, unless there is any such decree/order of a competent Court or it is established in any legal proceeding that the Jamabandi was created by playing fraud by the Raiyat or the creation of such Jamabandi was vitiated in law.
18. The right of tenancy is a statutory right and the same cannot be taken away except by the procedure prescribed by law. Under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the Raiyati right cannot be denied and the petitioner cannot be evicted from his occupancy holding except in execution of the decree passed in terms of Section 22 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
19. The respondents have not brought any document on record to show that there is any such decree/order of the competent Court or there was any established fraud in obtaining the Jamabandi either by the predecessor-in-interest or by the petitioner.
20. In view of the above, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-2, 3 & 5 do not sustain in law and the same are, hereby, quashed. This writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.