Jharkhand High Court
Ladu Munda @ Ludu Munda And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 3 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2004(1)JCR458(JHR)]
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. T.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Junior Counsel to the Government Advocate for the respondents-State; and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the Orders of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 5.9.1997 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 141 (R) 15 of 1997-98 (Annexure 1), whereby and whereunder the said Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioners thereby upholding the order of the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi passed on 2.6.1997 in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1992 by which he had refused to interfere and had dismissed the application for restoration filed by the petitioners.
3. According to the petitioners, their father (Bhalu Munda) was in possession of the lands in question as a raiyat and in support of the aforementioned submission the petitioners have relied upon Annexure 3 which is the photocopy of the certified copy of R.S. records of rights but a perusal thereof shows, that no doubt it was in the name of Bhalu Dhangar but from further perusal thereof it is evident that it was without any rent (Belagan). This obviously shows that the land holder whose name is recorded at the top right hand corner, i.e., Jamindar Babu Harihar Singh had given the land in lieu of services rendered by Bhalu Dhangar. Column 3 of the Khatian shows that the land was given in recognition of the services rendered i.e., 'Naukarana.'
4. Since the land was 'Naukarana', the basic question that arises for consideration is, as to whether a 'Naukarana' land in this case can be subjected to the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The answer must clearly be given in the negative. The words 'Naukarana land' is not and cannot be termed to be a possession of a raiyat. It merely suggests permissive possession and such possession of a servant cannot be allowed to be substituted and further it cannot be allowed to take the shape of a raiyati land. All that it means is that the 'Naukar' was given possession of the land for a certain period of time without taking any rent from him and that is why even in the Khatian the word 'Belagan' is used. It is apparent from the rent receipts brought on record by Annexure R-4 B appended to the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent No. 4 that prior to vesting, the rents used to be paid by Madan Lal Sahu, i.e. the respondent No. 4. Additionally, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, he has also brought on other record rent receipts paid by him to the State (Annexure IV, pp. 47 to 49). These documents go to show that the petitioners, even at the time of vesting were not in possession of the lands in question. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, had asserted that Bhalu Munda was forcibly dispossessed by Madan Lal about 10/12 years ago on the basis of conclusive documents alleged to have been executed in the year 1948. That document, according to the respondents is actually the registered settlement (Kabidtyat), which has been brought on record by Annexure 4-A. According to the respondents, the area of 96 decimals was given to Bhalu Dhangar in lieu of his services as a 'Dhangar' before the preparation of the records of rights and it was therefore that the lands were recorded as 'Naukarana' land. The said Bhalu Dhangar left the services of Babu Harihar Singh In the year 1940, whereafter the said ex-landlord came in possession of the same as his 'Bakast land'. Thereafter in the year 1948, the land was settled by the said registered 'Kabuliyat' mentioned above, in favour of the respondent No. 4. The respondents have stated at paragraph 4(iv) that Bhalu Munda died in the year 1942 without leaving any issue.
5. Thus, from a perusal of the pleadings made it is evident that the landlord having paid rent, and the landlord being in possession at the time of vesting, permissive possession could not have been allowed to be converted into a raiyat right. This was therefore a plain and simple 'Naukarana land' which was given to a servant for a certain period of time without any rent and that was why the word 'Belagan' was used. Both the Courts have, therefore correctly held that, the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act could not therefore have been applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly, dismissed.