Jharkhand High Court
Pradip Modi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5314 of 2014
Pradip Modi ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Revenue & Land Reforms, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
3. The Additional Commissioner, Ranchi
4. The Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi
5. The Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: M/s Mahesh Tewari, Sarvendra Kumar For the State: M/s Atanu Banerjee (G.A), Apurv (A.C to G.A)
-----
11/13.06.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Letter No. 2859(ii) dated 26.10.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.5 whereby the respondent No.5 has been directed to act in terms with the order passed by the respondent No.2 on 14.09.2009 accepting the proposal of the respondent No.3 that no rent receipt can be issued to the petitioner for the land situated under Khata No. 114, Plot No. 1091, area 16.70 acres, Village-Balalong, District-Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') as per the opinion of the Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipt to the petitioner for the said land.
2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land situated in Village-Balalong, Thana No. 236, under Khewat No. 5 and Khata No. 114, Plot No. 1091, area 24-25 acres has been recorded in the R.S. Record of Right as Gair Mazurua Malik. The ex-landlord, by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 30.12.1944, made chhaparbandi raiyati settlement of the said land with one Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary on annual rent of Rs.5.50 and put him in exclusive possession of the same. Thereafter, the settlee continued to pay the rent to the ex-landlord till the vesting of Zamindari. After vesting, the ex-landlord filed return under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for Village-Balalong in which there was also the reference of the settlement made in favour of Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary. Out of a total 24-25 acres of land, the 2 Government of Bihar acquired about 7.55 acres of land for the purpose of Hatia Dam, HEC and the compensation was paid to Hari Singh, Jaganath Ghashi and others in L. A. Case No. 64 of 1961-62 on the basis of a compromise entered between Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary with them. In the year 1965-66, the Jamabandi of the said land was created in favour of Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary by the order of the Circle Officer, Ratu passed in Misc. Case No. IR8(iii) of 1965-
66. Subsequently, Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary sold the remaining 16.70 acres of the said land to Prabhu Dayal Modi (the father of the petitioner) by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 08.11.1966 and put him in possession of the same. The correction slip of the said land was also issued in favour of Prabhu Dayal Modi vide the order dated 23.02.1984 passed in Misc. Case No. 188 R 27/83-84 and thereafter he continued to pay rent till 1985-86. Thereafter, the respondents stopped issuing the rent receipt of the said land. After the death of Prabhu Dayal Modi, the petitioner filed a petition dated 03.02.2006 before the respondent No.5 seeking direction to the Karamchari to issue the rent receipt of the said land in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 initiated Misc. Case No. 06/2006-07. Finally, the respondent No.3 vide Letter No. 2859(ii) dated 26.10.2009, directed the respondent No.4 to act in accordance with the direction issued by the respondent No.2 that no rent receipt could be issued to the petitioner for the said land, which ultimately gave rise to filing of the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled position of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be cancelled or kept in abeyance at the whims of the revenue authorities that too without initiating a proceeding in accordance with law and hearing the aggrieved person. The issuance of rent receipt has been kept in abeyance vide order dated 17.12.1986 passed by the Circle Officer, Ratu and the Circle Inspector, Ratu behind the back of the petitioner's father without referring to any proceeding, and as such, the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The issuance of rent receipt in favour of a person does not amount to violation of the provisions of the Forest 3 (Conservation) Act, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1980']. The respondents have wrongly comprehended that the issuance of rent receipt will change the legal status of the said land recorded as 'Bara Jangal' in the Revenue Record.
4. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the said land is recorded in the R.S Record of Right as 'Gair Mazarua' and the nature of the land is 'Bara Jangal'. Out of the said land, 7.86 acres has been notified as the forest land vide notification No. 2180R dated 01.07.1955 as per the list of the notified forest area made available by the Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand. The Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Ranchi has informed the revenue authorities that vide Letter No. F No. 11- 28/2005 FC dated 17.02.2005 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (FC Division), Government of India, the legal status of the land recorded as "forest" or "Jungle Jhar" in revenue records cannot be changed without prior approval of the Central Government as per the provision of the Act, 1980. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. The Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 has clarified that the provisions made in the Act, 1980 would apply to all the forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The forest land has been explained under Section 2 of the Act, 1980 which includes any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of its ownership. Any change in the legal status of the land recorded as 'Bara Jangal' in revenue records without prior approval of the Central Government is illegal and violative of Section 2 of the Act, 1980.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the mutation of the said land is still subsisting in the name of the father of the petitioner. However, the respondents have stopped issuing the rent receipt of the said land since 1986. The petitioner, after the death of his father, filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Ratu to issue rent receipt in his favour which was registered as Misc. Case No. 06/2006-07 and 4 finally a direction was issued by the respondent No.2 that no rent receipt can be issued to the petitioner for the said land in view of the letter No. F No. 11- 28/2005 FC dated 17.02.2005 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (FC Division), Government of India observing that the legal status of a land recorded as "forest" or "Jangal Jhar" in revenue records cannot be changed without prior approval of the Central Government as per the provision of the Act, 1980. The State-respondents have also given much stress to the contention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N Godavarman Thirumulkpad (Supra) has clarified that the provisions made in the Act, 1980 would apply to all forest irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authorities have no right to stop issuance of the rent receipt without any order passed in accordance with law, and that too, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person. It has not been denied by the respondents that there is a sale deed existing in the name of the father of the petitioner, and that thereafter, his name was mutated for the said land. The procedure for mutation of a person's name for any land and also for issuance of rent receipt is governed by the provisions of the Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973']. Section 12 of the Act, 1973 provides that any person claiming right to any holding or part thereof either by partition, succession (intestate or testamentary), transfer, exchange agreement, settlement, lease, mortgage, gift or by any other means shall file an application before the Anchal Adhikari (the Circle Officer). Section 14 of the Act, 1973 provides that the Anchal Adhikari, on receipt of the application for mutation, shall issue a general notice as well as notices to the parties concerned to file objection, if any, and he shall, after hearing the parties, dispose of the said application.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689 has held as under:-
5
"13. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue."
On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would be evident that the order of mutation neither confers any right upon the parties nor extinguishes the same.
7. The only purpose of mutation is to collect government revenue from the person who is in possession of the land. The revenue authorities, while deciding the mutation case, are not supposed to look into the right and title of a person upon the said land. Once the mutation of any land has been allowed and the rent receipts are being issued since long, the same cannot be stopped without any order passed in accordance with law. Moreover, the Act, 1980 has been enacted for preventing the use of forest land for non-forest purpose irrespective of the fact that the same belongs to any private individual. However, the Act, 1980 does not put any restriction in issuance of rent receipt to the owner of the said land. On perusal of the letter dated 17.02.2005 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (F. C. Division), Government of India (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit), it would appear that the said letter has primarily been issued for preventing change of the legal status of any land without prior approval of the Central Government as per the provisions of the Act, 1980. The present case is not of change in the legal status of the said land by the petitioner by deforestation / doing any non-forestry work. The issuance of rent receipt of the said land in favour of the petitioner cannot be denied on the pretext of the said letter of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (FC Division), Government of India.
8. In the case of T. N. Godavarman (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecologi-cal imbalance; and therefore, the 6 provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest'' must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classi-fication thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this court in AmbicaQuarrry Works and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., and recently in the order in Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority and Ors.. The earlier decision of this court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decision. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay."
9. In the aforesaid case, it has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Act, 1980 will be applicable to all the land irrespective of the nature of ownership of the land. However, the proposition of law does not prevent issuance of rent receipt in favour of the owner of the land. In fact, the stage of invoking Section 2 of the Act, 1980 has not yet reached, as it has not been alleged against the petitioner that he is doing any non-forestry work over the 7 said land in contravention of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1980. In my considered view, the respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner, Ranchi while issuing the impugned letter dated 26.10.2009 has misconstrued the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in T. N. Godavarman (Supra). Moreover, the letters dated 26.03.1982 & 17.02.2005 issued by the Central Government cannot be read to mean that the rent from a raiyat for the land mentioned as 'Jungle Jhar' in the revenue record, cannot be accepted. The purpose of the said letters issued by the Central Government is that no non-forestry work should be done/carried out on such land which has been recorded as 'Jungle Jhar' in the revenue record irrespective of the ownership of the land without prior approval of the Central Government as required under Section 2 of the Act, 1980. Admittedly, after purchase of the land in question from the predecessor-in- interest, the same was mutated in the name of the petitioner's father and thereafter, the rent receipts were also issued to him. The purpose of issuance of rent receipts is merely to collect the land revenue from the person who is in possession of the land. The provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1980 has nothing to do with the payment of land revenue or collection thereof by the revenue authorities, rather the purpose of Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is to save such land from further deforestation irrespective of the nature of ownership of the land.
10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order contained in letter No. 2859(ii) dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 cannot be sustained in law and the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accept the rent from the petitioner for the land in question and to issue update rent receipts in lieu thereof.
11. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 13.06.2018 Satish/A.F.R