Jharkhand High Court
Yogendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 25 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. 1200 of 2012
........
Yogendra Kumar .... ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) ............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-IV ........
06/25.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nilendu Kumar and learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Vineet Prakash.
Petitioner, Yogendra Kumar, son of Late Ramanika Prasad Singh has preferred this writ petition on 01.03.2012 for quashing the order dated 29.12.2011 (Annexure-13) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) in Misc. Case No. 27/2002-03 / 16/2003-04, whereby the Jamabandi in respect of raiyati land measuring an area of 40 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 383, Plot No. 496 of Village - Pundag, P.S. - Jaganathpur, Thana No. 228, District - Ranchi, recorded as Gairmajurwa Malik in Revisional Survey Record of Right has been cancelled though the name of the petitioner appears in the Register-II at IV/267 and on the basis of which, Jamabandi of the petitioner has been opened vide Mutation Case No. 195R27/1983-84 in Register-II. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi (Respondent No. 4) to get this order confirmed from the State and also communicate the copy of the order to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi (Respondent No. 5) and Circle Officer, Nagri (Respondent No. 6) in complete de hors of the provisions of law, without verifying any fact or following the principle of natural justice, rather on the basis of a general notice published in Newspaper by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipts, after accepting rents in respect of -2- Raiyati land measuring 40 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 383, Plot No. 496 of Village - Pundag, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, Thana No. 228, District - Ranchi as the same was collected pursuant to Mutation Case No. 195R27/1983-84 and the name has been mutated in Register-II at IV/267.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that it is unfortunate for the State of Jharkhand, that the Circle Officers and Revenue Authorities are not understanding the exact meaning of Gair Mazarua Malik or Gair Mazarua Khas land and thus under some confusion, such proceedings are being initiated, even after issuance of rent receipts by the State of Bihar after vesting of the Zamindari, so far in the matter, where Jamabandi has been opened and running since long.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the land of Plot No. 496 under Khata No. 383 having an area of 27 acres of Khewat No. 228 of Mauza - Pundag within the district of Ranchi was recorded as Gair Majuruwa Malik land of the ex- intermediary Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo. Out of 27 acres of land, the ex-intermediary landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo has settled 8 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 of Village - Pundag by way of customary Hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 to one Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, son of Bara Lal Mrityunjay Nath Shahdeo and rent receipt was also granted. The settlee was put in possession of the same and the settlee has also paid rent to the ex-landlord, which is evident from the order dated 01.07.1988 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/1985-86. Rent receipts granted by the ex-landlord has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the landlord, Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, created a registered trust known as "Chintamani Trust" by virtue of registered deed of trust dated 19.08.1948. The said trust was a private trust and not a public trust. The settlee Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, after creation of the said "Chintamani Trust" started paying rent with respect to the -3- settled lands to the Trust. After vesting of the Estate and commencement of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the return was filed by the Chintamani Trust, Plot No. 496, area - 8.00 acres alongwith other plots of Khata No. 383, situated at Village - Pundag, P.S. - Ranchi, District - Ranchi were shown to have been settled with Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo on 31.01.1943, which is evident from the order dated 01.07.1988 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/1985-86.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that on the basis of the Zamindari return, the State Government has also accepted Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo as Raiyat and entered his name in the Tenants' Ledger i.e. Register-II and Jamabandi was also opened in his name, which is evident from Jamabandi Nakal Register in Case No. 6 of 1955-56.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that it would not be out of place to mention here, that the State has initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 against the Trust, with respect to the properties, which were settled by the then landlord including the aforementioned lands to Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo and after making due enquiry, it was found that the Trust was genuine and the proceeding was dropped vide order dated 03.08.1959, passed by the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo sold 4 acres of land, being portion of R.S. Plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 of Village - Pundag to one Shailendra Kumar, son of Ram Charitra Singh by virtue of registered sale deed bearing No. 5555 in the year 1964, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
On the basis of said registered sale deed, Shailendra Kumar has applied for mutation before the Circle Officer, Ratu being Mutation Case No. 15/R-1964-65 and accordingly, correction slip showing mutation has been issued in the name of Shailendra Kumar with respect to 4 acres of land being portion of R.S. Plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 of Village - Pundag and the said Shailendra Kumar -4- was coming in peaceful possession from the date of purchase. Correction Slip of Mutation Case No. 15/R-1964-65 has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
Thereafter, Shailendra Kumar started paying rent to the State since the year 1965 to the year 1982 and rent receipts have been brought on record as Annexure-7 series to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Shailendra Kumar, out of 4 acres of land, has sold 40 decimals of land being portion of R.S. Plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 of Village- Pundag to one Yogendra Kumar (petitioner herein), son of Late Ramanika Prasad Singh by virtue of registered Sale Deed being No. 3097 dated 03.04.1982, which has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name before Circle Officer, Ratu (now Nagri) being Mutation Case No. 195R-27/1983-84 and accordingly, correction slip showing his mutation, has been issued with respect to 40 decimals of land out of 4.00 acres of land being portion of R.S. Plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 of Village - Pundag, which has been brought on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner started paying rent to the State since the year 1984 to the year 1995 before the Circle Officer, Ratu / Nagri without any hindrance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that in the year 2009, the Circle Officer, Nagri has refused to accept the rent from the petitioner, on the plea that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has issued a notice in the newspaper on 07.08.2010, recommending the cancellation of Jamabandi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that once a Jamabandi has been created in the name of a person, the State cannot cancel the same without having a declaration from a competent court of law to the effect that the said Jamabandi has been created on the basis of forged and fabricated document. The revenue authority has no right to say that the document is forged and fraudulent, it can only be declared by competent court of law. The power invoked by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is contrary to -5- the provisions of law, which itself creates mess in the system and that to in utter violation of principle of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that in the counter-affidavit, the State has taken a plea that the Jamabandi of the land in question was illegally created in the Register-II without obtaining the order of the competent authorities and as such illegal jamabandi has rightly been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that till date, the State has not come up with any affidavit to show that who is the competent authority for creation of Jamabandi? The State is using the word that it has been created by 'not a competent authority', but never disclosed, who is competent authority, as per law and how the mutation has been created illegally in the name of the petitioner. If, the rent receipt has been issued by the Circle Officer for a quite long time and rent has been deposited in the Government Treasury, then the highest revenue authority in the State of Jharkhand also cannot deny from the fact, that it was not within the knowledge, that Jamabandi has been created as it is incumbent upon the State Authority to know the source, from where revenue is coming in Government account, as such, unless and until the State comes with the clear finding, that who is the competent authority, for creating jamabandi, the State cannot escape its liability by such evasive word, that 'it was opened by an authority, who was not competent', as the same is not sufficient to show that document is a forged one and that too without any material or declaration from competent court of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that a large number of cases, arising out of Khata No. 383, Thana No. 228, Mauza - Pundag, District - Ranchi, have been adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court in writ jurisdiction. Some of the orders have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and some of the orders have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Detail list of cases arising out of Khata No. 383, Mouza - Pundag in the district of Ranchi are given hereunder:-
-6-Sl. No. Case No. Party Name 1 W.P.(C)-6802/2011 Shubhan Ansari & Ors Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors 2 W.P.(C)-644/2016 Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors 3 W.P.(C)-2783/2017 Anpurna Devi And Anr Versus Land Reforms And Revenue Department 4 W.P.(C)-3581/2017 Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo Versus Land Reforms And Revenue Department 5 W.P.(C)-1119/2006 Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari Versus State of Jharkhand and Others State of Jharkhand and Ors. L.P.A-474/2006 Versus Md. Muslim Ansari State of Jharkhand Special Leave Appeal- Versus (C) No-8279/2009 Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari 6 W.P.(C)-3651/2015 M/s India Estates Developments Limited through one of the Directors namely, Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs THE State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and Others 7 W.P.(C)-6192/2015 M/s India Estate Development Ltd Through Its Director Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs The State Of Jharkhand 8 W.P.(C)-4513/2016 Jahangir Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr 9 W.P.(C)-2585/2015 Abbas Ansari Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 10 W.P.(C)-3173/2020 Rashmi Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand 11 W.P.(C)-283/2011 Smt. Annapurna Devi Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. L.P.A/244/2012 State of Jharkhand Vs Smt. Annapurna Devi and Others -7- 12 W.P.(C)-4694/2011 Kalyani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 13 W.P.(C)-2166/2011 Lal Yashwant Nath Shahdeo Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 14 W.P.(C)-6802/2011 Shuband Ansari and Others Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 15 W.P.(C)-1207/2012 Mrigendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 16 W.P.(C)-2830/2012 Sidheshwar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 17 W.P.(C)-3230/2012 Usha Kiran Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 18 W.P.(C)-3865/2012 Smt. Manjula Sinha Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 19 W.P.(C)-6255/2012 Madhu Mahto Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors 20 W.P.(C)-8001/2012 Ram Charitar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 21 W.P.(C)-8019/2012 Malti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Ranchi 22 W.P.(C)-8002/2012 Dhananjay Kumar and Another Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 23 W.P.(C)-1241/2013 Lal Ambika Nath Shahdeo. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 24 W.P.(C)-1245/2013 Lal Ambika Nath Shahdeo. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 25 W.P.(C)-8045/2012 Rajesh Pathak Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors 26 W.P.(C)-3039/2013 Madhu Ram Sahu and Others Vs The State Of Jharkhand 27 W.P.(C)-7532/2011 Ratna Prabha Sahdeo Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 28 W.P.(C)-4324/2013 Jahangir Alam Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. -8- 29 W.P.(C)-7006/2013 Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand L.P.A/695/2015 Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 30 W.P.(C)-6994/2013 Kedarnath Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others L.P.A/696/2015 Kedarnath Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 31 W.P.(C)-2572/2014 Sailesh Kumar Thakur and Others Vs The State of Jharkhand 32 W.P.(C)-3828/2014 Kuwar Ram Kashyap Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 33 W.P.(C)-4222/2014 Umesh Nath Tiwary Vs The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others 34 W.P.(C)-3123/2014 Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand 35 W.P.(C)-3651/2015 M/s India Estates Developments Limited through one of the Directors namely, Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others 36 W.P.(C)-2334/2015 Munshi Ram Kashyap Vs The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others 37 W.P. (C) -1262/2010 Dharmesh Singh Vs. with State of Jharkhand and others W.P.(C) - 7967/2012 Lalita Devi Vs. with State of Jharkhand and others Fulwati Devi W.P.(C) - 7972/2012 Vs. State of Jharkhand and others 38 W.P. (C) - 5365/2014 Md. Julfan Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 39 W.P. (C) - 4895/2007 Smt. Kanak Kumari Devi and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and Others LPA - 244/2012 State of Jharkhand Vs. Annapurna Devi & Others -9-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under the State Litigation Policy, the Revenue Authorities should review their decision taken by a Deputy Commissioner, without any valid reason and recall all such orders by taking legal recourse before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised, but for the reason best known to the State Authorities, they are compelling the citizens to invoke the writ jurisdiction and bear the litigation cost, for which several writ petitions have been filed and disposed of, as such the writ petition may be allowed with exemplary cost against the State Authorities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted, that the impugned order may be quashed and the State Authority may be directed to issue rent receipt, unless and until a declaration from the competent court of civil jurisdiction is brought against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Vineet Prakash has opposed the prayer and has submitted, that counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents / State on 26.04.2012, duly sworn by Krishna Kumar, son of Bhuneshwar Prajapati, the then Circle Officer, Nagri and as such, the writ petition may be dismissed. However, he has not denied that some of the orders passed in this regard by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the State has not come up with case, that it is a Gair Mazaruwa Aam land, which is vested in the State of Bihar, now in the State of Jharkhand. It is also not the case of the State of Jharkhand, that how the petitioner got a fraudulent rent receipt in his favour or in favour of his vendor or in favour of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo.
It further appears to this Court, that the land appertaining to Plot No. 496 under Khata No. 383 having an area of 27 acres of Khewat No. 228 of Mauza - Pundag within the district of Ranchi was recorded as Gair Majuruwa Malik land of ex-intermediary Bara -10- Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo. The said landlord was in possession of the same. The ex-intermediary, Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, settled 8.00 acres of land out of R.S. Plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 of the said village - Pundag in favour of one Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, son of Bara Lal Mrityunjay Nath Shahdeo, vide Customary Hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 and put the settlee in possession of the same. The settlee paid rent to the ex-landlord from the date of settlement, which is evident from order dated 01.07.1988 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/1985-86 as submitted by the petitioner and not controverted by the Respondent.
After vesting of the State under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the aforesaid 8.0 acres of land of Plot No. 496, Khata No. 383, Khewat No. 228, Village - Pundag, District - Ranchi shown to be settled with Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, which is apparent from the Zamindari return. The State Government also accepted Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo as Raiyat and entered his name in the Tenants' Ledger i.e. Register-II and Jamabandi was opened in his name.
It is not out of place to mention here, that earlier a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initiated, which was also dropped on 03.08.1959 by the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi and same attains finality.
It appears that a large number of cases / writ petitions have been decided by different Benches of this Hon'ble Court and some of them are affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and also upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, as mentioned above.
It further appears that the State Authorities are confused with regard to Gair Majurwa Malik or Gair Majurwa Khas land from Gair Majurwa Aam land.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shubhan Ansari & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (C) No. 6802/2011 has explained the same, that Gair Mazarua Aam belonged to public or used for any public purposes. So far Gair Mazarua Khas or Gair Mazarua Malik land are concerned, the same are the land of ex-landlord, which was settled to the Raiyats.
-11-The long standing Jamabandi running in the name of petitioner or his vendor has been cancelled without any valid reason, on the basis of general observation made by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in utter violation of the principle of natural justice. Once a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has already been dropped by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi on 03.08.1959, which attains finality, it is not proper for the State to cancel the Jamabandi without any valid reason and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
The respondent / State is directed to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner, within 30 days from the date of production of copy of this order.
The State shall not put any hindrance in the peaceful possession of the petitioner or his successor in future, unless and until, the State obtains a decree with respect to aforesaid land from the competent court of Civil Jurisdiction.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-