Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Surjee Devi & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 16 February, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W. P. (C) No. 3351 of 2008
Smt. Surjee Devi & Ors. .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) .........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III .........
18/16.02.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioners on 08.07.2008 for issuance of direction(s) upon the respondents to issue rent receipts in the name of the petitioners for the land comprised within Plot Nos.3158, 3748, 3611, 3744, 3773 and 3662 under Khata No.194, measuring an area of 37 acre 60 decimal in Village- Simliya, Thana No.139 under the Police Station Ratu, in the District of Ranchi. The said land was settled to Late Rangnath Sahu (deceased)
-husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioners nos.2 and 3 by the then Zamindar, Raja Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo, who was the landlord of the said land, through Kabuliyat Patta dated 02.02.1946. Late Rangnath Sahu paid rents for which receipts were issued in his name, as such, petitioners being the legal heirs of Late Rangnath Sahu are entitled to be issued land revenue receipts in their name(s) after his death.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that name of Zamindar, Raja Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo was recorded as Khewatdar of land as contained in Khata No.194, Village- Simliya District- Ranchi and copy of Khewat and Khatiyan are annexed as Annexure-1 Series to the Writ Petition. The Kabuliyat Patta dated 2.2.1946 has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Rangnath Sahu paid rents to the landlord for the land, who issued Land Revenue Receipts in his name from the estate of -2- Zariagarh from 27.07.1949 to 03.01.1954 i.e. for the period prior to the vesting of Jamindari estate in the State of Bihar. He further submits that the ex-landlord filed return and Rangnath Sahu was shown as settlee in respect of the above mentioned land and Jamabandi was created in favour of Rangnath Sahu, demand was opened in his name and his name was duly entered in the Register Book Numbers are 1, 3 and 4 and Page Numbers are 346 and 347. Photocopy of the Jamabandi created in the name of petitioner vide Compensation Case No.A-29 of 1955-56 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that land was mutated in the name of Rangnath Sahu and said Rangnath Sahu died in the year 1999, leaving behind his wife (petitioner no.1) and two sons (petitioner nos.2 and 3). After the death of said Rangnath Sahu, the petitioners gave an application before the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi on 06.12.2006 along with all relevant documents, informing him of the death of Rangnath Sahu and requesting him to issue the Land Revenue Receipts in their names, but nothing was done, thereafter petitioners filed representation before the Additional Collector as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, but no action was taken then petitioners moved before this Court.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed one interlocutory application vide I.A. No.11810/2019 to add paragraph-6 with regard to an area of 29 acres 15 decimals at Village- Simliya comprised in Khata No.194, Thana No.139, Plot no.2425, area 4.15 acre and Plot No.2434, area 25 acres from the landlord i.e. Zamindar Raja Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo of the Estate of Zariagarh by Kabuliyat Patta dated 26.10.1940 and those documents have been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which has been allowed by this Court, as the land is of the same Khata No.194, but of different plots.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that some of the plots of which the rent receipt were available, which has been brought on record and the same is admitted by the respondents authorities also, but pursuant to that a proceeding has been initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide Case No.17/1997-98 and 57/2002-03 with regard to Khata No.-194, Plot -3- Nos.2513, 3103, 3115, 2519, 2512, 3611, 3683, 3773, 3772, 3782, 3778, 3783, 3645, 3604, 3590, 3190, 3654 and 3662 total -64.27 acres of land and the same has been entered as a gairmazurwa before vesting of the estate i.e. in the year 1932. The State is claiming those land as the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has submitted that these jamabandi(s) are suspicious in view of the Government letter issued by Department of Revenue, Land Reforms Government of Bihar vide letter No.914(Ra) dated 09.12.1998 and these jamabandi(s), which have been opened without competent authority, as such, the entry made in Register-II of Mouza- Simliya, part 3, page nos.474 and 476 shall be cancelled.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that initiation of a proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act is itself bad in law, as this Kabutiyat Patta was issued with respect to Plot Nos.3158, 3748, 3611, 3744, 3773, 3662 dated 02.02.1946, when no person of that time was knowing that in the year 1950 an Act will come, whereby the cut off date will be fixed as 01.01.1946, however, other Plots of the same Khata No.194 i.e. 2425 and 2434 are of theyear 1940.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that State even after 72 years of enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 could not verify the Government land from the M- form submitted by the Zamindar nor verified the same from the compensation cases, in which the zamindar has been paid rent, rather the Circle Officers are behaving like a Monarch in the State, though they don't have any document to claim the land to be of Government Land.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that this Court has granted several adjournments to the State counsel(s) so as to defend their case, but except a proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, nothing has been shown that how the State is claiming these lands.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that a detail order has been passed by this Court on 15.02.2022, but even then, nothing has been done. The State has taken wrong stand with regard to revenue Letter No.914(Ra) dated 09.12.1998 and also taking action against the responsible persons, who have opened -4- such jamabandi, but in this case no such proceeding has been initiated, which will be apparent from the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, Ratu [Mr. Pradip Kumar, S/o Late Bindeshwar Singh, Circle Officer, Ratu, District- Ranchi] on 28.09.2021. The said counter- affidavit has been rejected by this Court in terms of the order dated 20.12.2021, as it appears to this Hon'ble Court an eye wash and thus, there is no materials on record to claim these land by the Respondent- State.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6802 of 2011 (J. Poonam Srivastav) vide judgement date20-03-2012, has categorized the Gair Mazurua land in two parts i.e., Gair Mazarua Aam and Gair Mazarua Khas. The Gair Mazarua Khas is the property of the Zamindar whereas, Gair Mazarua Aam is the property used by common people. These revenue records upon which, the State is putting reliance is with respect to Gair Mazarua which is of the last Survey i.e., Revisional Survey of the year, 1932 i.e. prior to Independence. It never speaks that it is Gair Mazarua Aam so as to claim it by the Government after vesting of the Estate. This fact has been completely ignored by the Revenue Authorities while passing the impugned orders. The relevant portion of the judgement at page no.5 is quoted hereunder :-
"In view of the settled principles of law, I am not able to accept the argument of the learned counsel and the assertions made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit quoted herein above, the averments in the affidavit are presumptive, a definite stand on behalf of the respondents is necessary. On the contrary the authority has completely given a good by to the procedure laid down by law as well as the directions of this Court in various writ petitions. The documentary proof regarding the settlement of land brought on record has completely been overlooked. The impugned order Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition only mentions that directions have been received for staying the issuance of receipt in respect of Khata No.383. Evidently no enquiry has been conducted, not even the petitioners have been afforded any opportunity of hearing as well as there is no order of the State Government to substantiate that any valid order from a competent authority is on record. On the contrary authorities have passed a short and cryptic order without applying their mind on the basis that the land in question is Gair Mazarua Khas. Obviously, it is not a case that land is Gair Mazarua Aam and belong to the public or used for any public purpose."
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the case of Dineshwar Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in [2008 (3) JCR 639 (Jhr.)] affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand -5- & Ors vs Dineshwar Prasad, in L.P.A. Nos.142 of 2010 with 307 of 2009 reported in (2018) 2 JCR 486 wherein Jamabandi with respect to the land of R.S. Khata No.194, Village- Simaliya, Thana No.139, Plot No.3683, has been affirmed and as such, this case is also with respect to the aforesaid land, which is being mentioned in the compensation prepared and brought on record by the Circle Officer himself as Annexure-B at page Nos.15 and 16 to the supplementary affidavit dated 25.09.2021.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Circle Officer has submitted that entry has been made in the Register-II by the Halka Karmchari, who is not competent authority. This act of the State has been condemned time and again by this Hon'ble Court and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has passed judgment in the case of Dineshwar Prasad (supra) which has already been affirmed. The relevant portion of judgment at Para-10 (f), (g) and (h) may profitably be quoted hereunder:
"(f) These entries have also been continued for several years and abruptly in the year 2002, Halka Karamchari, who is lowest in the rank of Revenue Offices, has made a remark that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land from the year 1942.
(g) Thus, after 60 long years, the wisest man, who is lowest in the rank, in the revenue offices of the State of Jharkhand wrote one line that the land in question is Gair Majaruwa Malik Land and the high ranking Administrative Officers of the Revenue Department build a castle upon it, which has resulted into several revenue 6 litigations and two writ petitions and two Letters Patent Appeals.
(h) Thus, it appears that the State Government is relying upon one line report given by the Halka Karamchari that land in question is a government land. If this is the stand of the government, the State Government can file a Civil Suit so that the title of the property can be decided or the ownership of the property can be decided by the competent Trial Court.
Ownership can always be decided by the civil courts. There is a presumption in favour of the holder of the mutation entry, especially, when any mutation entry is much older in point of time."
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that it is strange that in a democratic country, the citizens are being harassed by the Government Officials in such fanciful manner without showing any document and the present matter is one of the glaring example of such kind which is pending before this Court since 2008 and in spite of such act, Circle Officers are transferred from one -6- place to another place and they are not taking care of the Government Land.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that earlier this Court has directed the State counsel to bring the record maintained by the Circle Officer of the area with respect to the Government Lands.
Upon which Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State, after seeking instruction from the Circle Officer, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, who is present in his Chamber as the Court is running through virtual mode, has submitted that no such register is maintained in the Circle Office, Ratu, with respect to the Government Lands.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that Annexure -1 appended with writ petition is Khewat of Mouza- Simliya in the name Zamindar Raja Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo and in the said document, Khewat No.194 has been shown as gairmazaruwa malik land as it is apparent from the page nos.474 and 476 of Register-II that the jamabandi has been created in the name of Rangnath Sahu, which has been brought on record, those are before the vesting of the estate, which is admitted by both the parties.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that jamabandi was created in favour of Rangnath Sahu, demand was opened in his name and his name was duly entered in the Register Book Nos.1, 3 and 4 with regard to Kabuliyat dated 02.02.1946 and thus, a proceeding was initiated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, as the cutoff date fixed was 01.01.1946.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that the document, which has been brought on record with regard to Khata No.194, Plot No.625 in the name Rangnath Sahu in Compensation Case No. A-29/1955-56 and the Plot numbers which are mentioned as Plot No.3158 area 8.38, Plot No.3748 area-0.48, Plot No.3611 area-14.00, Plot No.3744 area-4.80, Plot No.3773 area-5.28, Plot No.3662 area-4.66 total-37.60 decimals are suspicious Jamabandi.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that by way of counter-affidavit, the respondent-State has shown that a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms -7- Act has been initiated vide order dated 05.09.2006 and the Jamabandi, which was created with respect to Khata No.194, Thana No.139, Plot Nos.2513, 3103, 3115, 2519, 2512, 3611, 3683, 3773, 3772, 3782, 3778, 3783, 3645, 3604, 3590, 3190, 3654 and 3662 total area - 64.27 acres have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as a suspicious jamabandi opened by the incompetent person.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act has not been assailed by petitioners. The petitioners should go and file title suit before the competent court of law for declaration of their right, title, but in a normal consequence no jamabandi can be created till the order under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is existing.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that case in hand decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Chancla Devi; State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Dineshwar Prasad, L.P.A. Nos.142 of 2010 with 307 of 2009 reported in (2018) 2 JCR 486 .Para-10 (e) of the same may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"(e) They applied for mutation entry and the application was treated as Mutation Case No. 183R 27/1993-
1994 before the Circle Officer, Town, Anchal and it was allowed. Thus, mutation entries were carried out in the name of the purchasers and petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 as well as petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008 from 1993- 1994."
As such, this fact is not available to the present petitioners. Though jamabandi has been opened with regard to Khata No.194, Plot Nos.2513, 3103, 3115, 2519, 2512, 3611, 3683, 3773, 3772, 3782, 3778, 3783, 3645, 3604, 3590, 3190, 3654 and 3662 with regard to total area- 64.27 acres of Mauza- Simliya, Thana No.139, but it appears that for only three plots of the present petitioners, the jamabandi has been opened, as such, the case is different, which has been upheld by the Division Bench.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the State has further submitted that no corresponding rent receipt has been issued, as such, this Court may dismiss the writ petition directing the petitioners to prove their title before the competent court.
-8-After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, it appears to this Court that in pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by this Court, the counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III has failed to produce any register with regard to the Ratu Block in compliance of the order passed by this Court. Further, counsel for the respondent State, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III is coming forward with their plea that they don't have any document in their office upon the instruction of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Circle Officer, Ratu and in the presence of members of Bar, as the Court is functioning through Virtual mode. This Court has found that several documents with regard to land of the Zamindars, the transfer made by the Zamindar's and documents with regard to compensation cases have been brought on record, but the State without verifying M-Form and the Plot number of the compensation case, is behaving in such a manner that even where the Jamabandi has been created and pursuant thereto the rent receipts have been granted and the jamabandi of those persons has been cancelled without considering or without compliance of direction passed by the then Department of Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Bihar vide Letter No.914(Ra) dated 09.12.1998.Even this Court has granted ample opportunities to the State to explain that how a Jamabandi, which has been created long ago and continued for the years has gone wrong, but the State has failed to establish the same. It is admitted by the Circle Officer before this court that no register is maintained in the Office of the Circle Officer(s) with respect to Government lands.
When it was asked by this Court to Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III for the State that who makes such entry in the Register-II, upon which, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III for the State, on instruction from Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the Circle Officer, Ratu has submitted that it is done by Halka Karmchari and no register is available in the office of Circle Officer, Ratu with respect to Government land. This issue has to be considered by the Additional Chief Secretary, Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand whether a Halka Karmchari can make such entry in the Register and if such entries which are valuable entries made by the Halka Karmchari, then it has to be supervised and inspected by the Circle -9- Officer and Superior Revenue Officers, but after a long time, such entry cannot be said to be wrong entry made by incompetent authority.
Under the aforesaid circumstances and from perusal of the documents brought on record it appears to this court that the claim of the petitioner(s) on the basis of documents, at least it is established that the land in question was in possession of the petitioners, since prior to the vesting of the Estate and before enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, as more than 72 years have passed. The State has no document to agitate that these lands belong to the State as it has been submitted by Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III for the State on instruction of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Circle Officer, Ratu that no such register or document is maintained in the Office of the Circle Office.
Further, this Court considering the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Dineshwar Prasad, L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 with L.P.A. No.307 of 2009 is of the opinion that the direction passed by this Court has not been complied by the State till the date. It's been almost 5 years since the direction has been passed in the judgement, but still State is harping on the same issue with respect to the plots under Khata No.194 , as the same has already been decided by the Division Bench that it is not a Government land, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the lands in question are in possession of the petitioners for the last 72 years i.e. at least from the date of commencement of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioners and in absence of any valid documents adduced by the State.
However, this Court is surprised to see that a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950 can be initiated with respect to any land after 01.01.1946, but on the basis of some valid grounds. It is not as all the rights created with regard to the transfer of land much after 01.01.1946 is illegal or bad rather, same has to be considered with appropriate due diligence.
When the estate has been vested after the independence and before enactment of BLR Act in 1950, where the cut-off date was fixed as 01.01.1946, but still it is not open for the State to enquire any transfer made after 01.01.1946 and without any basis. The State has no record to -10- claim these lands and without any basis, Kabuliyat patta dated 02.02.1946 issued by the jamindar, Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo in favour of Rangnath Sahu cannot be enquired under Sec 4(h) of the said Act. The State has failed to produce any paper that these plots have not been mentioned in M-Form or in the compensation case or the signature of Mahendra Nath Sahdeo is found to be forged. Thus, initiation of the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the B.L.R. Act, 1950 cannot be allowed to upset the entire transfer made prior to the enactment of the Act,1950.
Further, the State should remain cautious in initiating any proceeding under Section 4(h) of the BLR Act and it is incumbent upon the State that for initiating such proceeding, there must be cogent reason, which is lacking in the present case. Apart from that the State has no document to claim aforesaid lands and even they have not enquired from M-Form or compensation case about the documents, rather with regard to some of the plots of Khata No.194, the jamabandi was created and pursuant thereto rent receipt were also issued. In the present case, the jamabandi has been created and then the State while not granting/issuing rent receipt is also causing loss to the State revenue, as State cannot claim those land to be State's land in absence of any document, as such, it would be proper that rent receipt should be issued and rent shall be collected from the land holder so that State may not suffer any revenue loss. Since, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and some of the rent receipts have been issued for some of the plots of Khata No.194.
Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent-authorities to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioners so that the Government should not face loss of revenue.
Accordingly, this Court directs the Circle Officer, Ratu to grant rent receipt to the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid land within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This order is being passed in presence of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi.
Hence, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed.
However, it is open for the State to prepare the list of Government land(s) on the basis of M-Form, return submitted by the Ex-Zamindars, award of the compensation case by which Zamindars have been paid -11- compensation or any other document upon which the Government can put reliance and on the basis of that the State can claim the land by seeking declaration before the competent Court of law.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/