Jharkhand High Court
Bilaso Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 16 February, 2010
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(C). No. 4123 of 2004
...
Bilaso Devi ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
3. Additional Collector, Hazaribagh
4. Girdhari Mahto
5. Subodh Mahto ...
Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioners : - Mr. Chandar Kishore Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondents : - J.C. to S.C.(L&C).
...
5/16.02.2010Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 16.11.2001 passed by the Additional Collector in Misc. Appeal No. 20/98-99 and the order dated 31.03.2004 of the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur passed in Revenue Revision No. 69/2002, whereby the running Jamabandi of the petitioner purportedly opened way back in the year 1992, has been sought to be cancelled.
3. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1933, the Ramgarh Raj was under the Court of Wards Estate and in that year, one Mogal Hazam, father of Bandhan Thakur and father-in-law of the present petitioner, obtained a settlement from the Court of Wards Estate, of the entire holding No. 66 under Khata No. 72 and Khata No. 74, on the ground that these were abandoned lands. A Hukumnama dated 25.08.1933, in confirmation of the settlement made, was granted to the petitioner's father-in-law for a total area of 1.08 acres of land. At the time of settlement, the rent was accordingly fixed and used to be paid by Mogal Hazam.
4. After the vesting of the Jamindari in the State Government, a fresh application was filed by the petitioner's husband Bandhan Thakur, for fresh assessment of rent of Khata No. 66 in the name of his wife namely the present petitioner, in the office of the Anchal Adhikari. A rent fixation case No. 2/91-92 was registered. After issuance of the General Notice to the public and awaiting objections if any, the rent fixation was made in favour of the petitioner.
5. Later, in the year 1980, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 began making disturbances in the peaceful possession and occupation of the land of the petitioner. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated between both parties in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Rule of restraint was made absolute against the respondents thereby confirming that the petitioner was in actual occupation and possession of the land.
6. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh against the order dated 08.06.1993 passed by the L.R.D.C., Hazaribagh. The order of L.R.D.C. was set aside by the Additional Collector by the impugned order. Against the impugned order of the Additional Collector, the petitioner preferred a Revenue Revision before the Commissioner which was dismissed and hence the present writ application.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the impugned order, the running Jamabandi which was opened since more than a decade ago, was sought to be cancelled without any legal basis.
8. Denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondent State in their counter affidavit is that though in the revenue records the name of the petitioner finds entered, but a dispute has been raised regarding the petitioner's claim of settlement of the lands in favour of the Mogal Hazam way back in 1933. The respondent State has also disputed the petitioner's claim of possession over the land in question. The further contention of the respondent State is that after more than 40 years of the vesting of the Jamindari in the State Government, the Anchal Adhikari had no authority to initiate the rent fixation case in 1991-92 under the provisions of C.N.T. Act.
Explaining further, it is stated that the land under Khata No. 66 was entered in the name of one Genduwa Mahto and as such, even if the rent assessment was to be made, it ought to have been initiated in favour of the legal heirs and successors of the deceased Genduwa Mahto.
9. From the rival submissions, it appears that the parties have set up their rival claims of title and possessions over the disputed land. Admittedly, by the rent fixation case, the settlement of the land was made in favour of and in the name of the present petitioner in 1991-92 after inviting objections from the public by issuance of public notice.
10. The disputed question of title could not possibly have been gone into by the Additional Collector and neither could the Additional collector or the Commissioner have interfered with the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. Though the creation of the Jamabandi does not create title but its cancellation has its adverse civil consequences.
11. From the perusal of the impugned orders of the Additional Collector it appears that the decision to cancel the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner has been taken mainly on the basis of conjectures and surmises and not on any of the grounds enumerated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
12. In the light of the above, I find merit in this writ application and accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. Since the dispute essentially involves disputed questions of fact relating to the rival claims of title and possession, the parties may refer their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) Birendra/