Jharkhand High Court
Islam Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 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. 3599 of 2012
........
Islam Ansari, S/o Seikh Imamudin, R/o Pundag, P.O. & P.S. - Argora, District - Ranchi .... ..... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi.
4. The Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi .... ..... Respondents WITH W.P. (C) No. 3612 of 2012 ........
Shyam Bihari Nayak, S/o Ghura Nayak, R/o Pundag, P.O. & P.S. - Argora, District - Ranchi .... ..... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. The Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi .... ..... Respondents WITH W.P. (C) No. 3878 of 2012 ........
Afjal Hussain, S/o Mian Jaan Ali, R/o Pundag, P.O. & P.S. - Argora, District - Ranchi .... ..... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi.
4. The Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate.
[In all cases] For the Respondents/State : Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I. [In W.P. (C No. 3599/2012 )] Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II.
[In W.P.(C) No. 3612/12, W.P. (C) No. 3878/12].
........
11/28.03.2022.
All the three writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as all the three writ petitioners are claiming their land on the basis of settlement made by ex-landlord -2- Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, Son of Nawal Kishor Nath Shahdeo, Maharaja, Palkot Garh with respect to land of Mouza - Pundag, Khata No. 383, District - Ranchi.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), Mr. Binod Singh and learned counsel for the respondents/State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I in W.P. (C) No. 3599/2012 and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II.
W.P. (C) No. 3599/2012Petitioner, Islam Ansari has preferred W.P. (C) No. 3599/2012, for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to accept rent and issue up-to-date rent receipt in favour of petitioner in respect of land appertaining to Khata No. 383, Plot No. 1614B, 1615D, 1574F, total area - 2.10 acres of Mauza - Pundag, District - Ranchi.
The land of Khata No. 383, Thana No. 228, Plot Nos. 1614B, 1615D and 1574F, total area - 2.10 acres of Mauza - Pundag, District - Ranchi was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas in the Record of Rights, in the name of ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, Son of Nawal Kishor Nath Shahdeo, Maharaja, Palkot Garh. The said ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo on vesting of Zamindari, created a trust known as "Chintamani Trust" and all Zamindari interest were given to said trust.
The said ex-landlord, Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo acted in capacity of President of the said Chintamani Trust, executed a registered Hukumnama (registered Kabuliat) vide deed No. 3066 dated 25.04.1952 in favour of grandfather of the petitioner namely, Sheikh Puran and put the grandfather of the petitioner in peaceful and legal possession of the land measuring an area of 2.10 acres appertaining to Khata No. 383 of Mauza - Pundag, Plot Nos. 1614B, 1615D and 1574F on the basis of Salami of Rs. 50/-.
Sheikh Puran, the grandfather of the petitioner died living behind his two sons namely, Sultan Ahmad and Kurban Ansari. Sultan Ahmad has died issueless, whereas Kurban Ansari has died -3- living behind Islam Ansari (petitioner), Yunus Yusuf and Akhtar. The respondent recognized the possession and settlement right of the grandfather of the petitioner and opened Jamabandi in his favour and has accepted the rent till 1984 by issuing rent receipt. The rent was paid to the ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo before vesting of Zamindari system and subsequently to the State of Bihar after vesting. After 1984, the rent has not been accepted on the ground that the land has been vested with the State on the date of vesting of Zamindari, without any formal order in this regard.
W.P. (C) No. 3612/2012Petitioner, Shyam Bihari Nayak has preferred W.P. (C) No. 3612/2012 for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to accept rent and issue up-to- date rent receipt in favour of petitioner in respect of land appertaining to Khata No. 383, Plot No. 1614, total area - 1 acre of Mauza - Pundag, District - Ranchi.
The land of Khata No. 383, Thana No. 228, Plot Nos. 1614, total area - 1.0 acres of Mauza - Pundag, District - Ranchi was recorded in the name of ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, Son of Nawal Kishor Nath Shahdeo, Maharaja, PalkotGarh. The said ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo on vesting of Zamindari creates a trust known as "Chintamani Trust"
and all Zamindari interest were given to said trust.
The said ex-landlord, Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo acted in capacity of President of the said Chintamani Trust, executed a registered Hukumnama (registered Kabuliat) vide deed No. 2352 dated 27.04.1949 in favour of grandfather of the petitioner, Bahoran Ghasi and put the grandfather of the petitioner in peaceful and legal possession of the land measuring an area of 1.0 acres appertaining to Khata No. 383 of Mauza - Pundag, Plot Nos. 1614.
The respondent recognized the possession and settlement right of the grandfather of the petitioner and opened Jamabandi in his favour and has accepted the rent till 1984 and issued rent receipt. The -4- rent was paid to the ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo before vesting of Zamindari system and subsequently to the State of Bihar after vesting. After 1984, the rent has not been accepted on the ground that the land has been vested with the State on the date of vesting of Zamindari.W.P. (C) No. 3878/2012
Petitioner, Afjal Hussain, has preferred W.P. (C) No. 3878/2012 for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to accept rent and issue up-to- date rent receipt in favour of petitioner in respect of land appertaining to Khata No. 383, Plot No. 1722, 303, 1723, 1724, total area - 2.90 acres of Mauza - Pundag, District - Ranchi.
The land of Khata No. 383, Thana No. 228, Plot Nos. 1722, 303, 1723, 1724, total area - 2.90 acres of Mauza - Pundag, District
- Ranchi was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas in the Record of Rights, in the name of ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, Son of Nawal Kishor Nath Shahdeo, Maharaja, PalkotGarh. The said ex- landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo on vesting of Zamindari creates a trust known as "Chintamani Trust" and all Zamindari interest were given to said trust.
The said ex-landlord, Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo acted in capacity of President of the said Chintamani Trust, executed a registered Hukumnama (registered Kabuliat) no. 2352 dated 27.04.1949 in favour of father of the petitioner namely, Mian Jaan Ali and put the father of the petitioner in peaceful and legal possession of the land measuring an area of 2.90 acres appertaining to Khata No. 383 of Mauza - Pundag, Plot Nos. 1722, 303, 1723, 1724 on the basis of Salami.
Mian Jaan Ali, the father of the petitioner died living behind his two sons namely, Siraj Ansari and Afjal Hussain (Petitioner). The respondent recognized the possession and settlement right of the father of the petitioner and opened Jamabandi in his favour and has accepted the rent till 1984 and issued rent receipt. The rent was paid to the ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo before vesting of -5- Zamindari system and subsequently to the State of Bihar after vesting. After 1984, the rent has not been accepted on the ground that the land has been vested with the State on the date of vesting of Zamindari.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Binod Singh has submitted, that earlier similar matters came up before the Hon'ble Court pertaining to the Khata no.-383, for direction to the concerned authority, for the issuance of rent receipt and to accept the rent. Earlier, one Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari came up before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 (Muslim @ Md. Muslim Vs. State of Jharkhand &Ors.) to accept cess / rent and also for issuance of rent receipt pertaining to Khata No.- 83, which was allowed in terms of order dated 09.08.2006. The said order was subsequently modified vide order dated 13.09.2006 and the same was assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The appeal preferred by the State was dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2006 and 13.09.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 474/2006 dated 15.10.2008.The order of affirmation by the Hon'ble Division Bench has been assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8279/2009 which was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.05.2009,affirming the order of this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in another case of Shubhan Ansari and Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (C) No. 6802/2011 pertaining to KhataNo.-383, has directed the State Authority to accept the cess / rent and issue rent receipt.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted similar matters have been allowed by the Hon'ble Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and even some are upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The lists of cases with regard to Khata no.-83, Pundag, profitably be quoted 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 Another
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
Special Leave Appeal- State of Jharkhand
(C) No-8279/2009 Versus
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) - 4895/2007 Smt. Kanak Kumari Devi and Anr.
V.
State of Jharkhand and Others
LPA - 244/2012 State of Jharkhand
Vs.
Annapurna Devi & Others
38 W.P. (C) - 1200/2012 Yogendra Kumar
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand and others
39 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
-9-
40 W.P. (C) - 5365/2014 Md. Julfan Ansari
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand and Others
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted similar matters have been allowed by the Hon'ble Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and even upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, still the State under its Litigation Policy is not withdrawing such order which has been passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi without any basis, whereby Jamabandi has been shown to be suspicious,as such, compelling the citizens to file writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the Jamabandi has been opened, then it can only be cancelled if the State is able to satisfy, that the same has been issued on the basis of some fraudulent act, rather in these cases, the State has taken a plea that it has not been issued by a competent authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that till date, State has not come up with any counter-affidavit, disclosing that who is a competent authority for issuance of such rent receipt. If a Circle Officer has granted rent receipt after opening a Jamabandi in due process of the Procedure of law, the same cannot be cancelled, on the basis that it was not opened by a competent authority, as such the writ petitioners may be allowed.
Learned counsels for the respondents / State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.- II have opposed the prayer and have submitted that counter-affidavits have been filed by Krishna Kumar, Son of Bhuneshwar Prajapati, Circle Officer, Nagri in all the three writ petitions praying therein that the writ petitions may be disposed of accordingly.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the lands have been settled by ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo in favour of petitioners' ancestors, rent was paid to the ex-landlord -10- before vesting and after vesting, the rent was paid to the State of Bihar, nowhere respondents have come up before this Court that what fraudulent method has been adopted by the petitioners, only a vague and bald statement has been given by the State, that it was issued by not a competent authority, this Court is not inclined to accept such things as several writ petitions have been allowed as referred above.
It is well settled proposition and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments has held that once the issue has been decided by the Apex court, on a certain set of facts and principle of law, it is binding to all the courts as well as parties to the litigation.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanker Raju v. Union of India reported in (2011) 2 SCC 132 wherein Apex Court has explained, the doctrine of binding precedent, which is not only binding between the parties to the litigation but also binding for the Nation. Para- 12 and 13 is profitably quoted herein -
12. In Ganga Sugar Corpn. v. State of U.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 223 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 90] , at SCC p. 227, para 6 this Court cautioned that, the "judgments of this Court are decisional between litigants but declaratory for the nation". This Court further observed: (SCC p. 233, para 28) "28. ... Enlightened litigative policy in the country must accept as final the pronouncements of this Court ... unless the subject be of such fundamental importance to national life or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that it is wiser to be ultimately right rather than to be consistently wrong. Stare decisis is not a ritual of convenience but a rule with limited exceptions."
13. In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] this Court has enunciated the importance of the doctrine of binding precedent in the development of jurisprudence of law:
(SCC p. 766, paras 8-9) "8. Taking note of the hierarchical character of the judicial system in India, it is of paramount importance that the law declared by this Court should be certain, clear and consistent. It is commonly known that most decisions of the courts are of significance not merely because they constitute an adjudication on the rights of the parties and resolve the dispute between them, but -11- also because in doing so they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future cases. In this latter aspect lies their particular value in developing the jurisprudence of the law.
9. The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court."
Also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 has also held that the order passed by the Apex Court is binding on the parties. Para 27 of the judgement is quoted herein: -
27. ....... The statement contained in the order other than on points of law would be binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under
challenge on the principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the Apex Court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave............
In the view of the Shanker Raju (Supra) and Kunhayammed (Supra), it appears to this court that the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, is binding upon the Circle Officer and the state authorities. It is also incumbent upon the State to adhere the same and under its Litigation Policy shall withdraw such order which has been passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi without any basis, whereby Jamabandi has been shown to be suspicious pertaining to Khata no.-383, Mouza -
Pundag, District - Ranchi without any valid reasons, to minimize the litigation and to prevent the multiplicity of writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court.
Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are hereby allowed.
-12-The State authority are directed to issue rent receipts forthwith within a period of 30 days from today. The State shall not put any hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner or his successor in interest, with regard to the above mentioned land, unless the State obtains a decree in their favour by competent court of law.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-