Jharkhand High Court
Pervas Lal Rawat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:12671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1854 of 2023
.........
Pervas Lal Rawat, aged about 61 years, son of late Anokhe Lal Rawat, resident of village Tetariyadih, Post office and Police Station-Domchanch, District-Koderma (Jharkhand). ..... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Post Office and Police Station-Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Post Office and Police Station Koderma, District-Koderma(Jharkhand).
4. The Circle Officer, Domchanch, Post Office and Police Station, Domchanch, District-Koderma. ..... Respondents .........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-IV .........
C.A.V. ON 08/04/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:28/04/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order issued under Memo no. 39(Chh)01/2016 dated 14/03/2016, (Annexure-8); by which in Circle-Domchanch in Village Karakhut, Thana No.353 under Khata no.114 being Khasara No. 1658 comprising an area 5 Acres land was transferred out of 22 Acre 52 Decimals (hereinafter to be referred as the Land) 1 2025:JHHC:12671 for construction of Girls residential School. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 08/02/2018 (Annexure-10), passed by the 3rd Respondent without issuance of any notice to the petitioner although the land in question was settled by one Bunda Bai Wife of Nathan Lal Rawat in the name of Late Anokhe Lal Rawat, father of petitioner.
Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the concerned Respondent to pay compensation for land in question to this Petitioner.
3. The brief facts of this case as it appears from the writ petition are that the land of Khata no. 114, Khewat No. 1658 Area 22.52 Acres was obtained by father of petitioner Late Anokhelal Rawat by way of Hukumnama by one Bunda Bai on 30 Sawan 1348. After vesting of Jamindari, the father of Petitioner was recognized as heir and his name were entered in Register-II of Khata No.114 and rent was paid up to 2001.
On 18/12/2000, the Circle Officer, Koderma issued Land Possession Certificate of Khata no. 114, Plot No. 1658 Area 22.52 Acres of Late Anokhelal Rawat father of petitioner. The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh vide order dated 14/03/2016 intimated the Accountant General Jharkhand that Circle Domchanch Village-Karakhut Thana No. 353, Khata no. 114 Kesara-1658 Area 5 Acres Gair Majarua Khas has acquired for Construction of Residential School. 2
2025:JHHC:12671
4. Pursuant thereto; the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.1316 of 2017, which was disposed of on 22/11/2017 by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to consider case of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma passed an Order dated 08/02/2018; whereby the claim of the Petitioner was rejected though the claim of the Petitioner is that he has valid document in support of his case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents have no authority to transfer the land in question which was obtained through Hukumnama by father of the Petitioner without giving any notice and without paying proper compensation to the Petitioner although the fact remains that after vesting of Jamindari, compensation was paid to Girbardhari Lal Raut in Ad-interim Case No.369/K.A. 55-56..
He lastly submits that the concerned Respondent has no authority under law to transfer the land in question although the said land was owned and possessed in name of late Anokhelal Rawat father of petitioner which is evident from land possession certificate issued by Circle Officer Koderma dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure 6) and that too without compensation.
Based upon the above submissions, Petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned orders and further direction upon the Respondents to pay the compensation for land in question to the Petitioner.
3
2025:JHHC:12671
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the land in question is Gair Majurwa Khas land which belongs to the State Government and there is no order of any competent authority for the issuance of rent receipts and the Sada Hukumnama is not corroborated with any zamindari return.
He further submits that there is nothing in Annexure-2 which can co-relate the documents with the land in question, inasmuch as, after perusal of the entire documents, it cannot be deciphered that the said documents is for the Plot No. 1658; moreover the compensation is only given for the trees and not for land.
7. He further submits that there is no signature of the competent authority for the issuance of Rent Receipt in Annexure-4 i.e. Register II and further the Zamindari Return has also not been submitted. He lastly submits that from perusal of Annexure-6, it would transpire that some interpolation has been done in the area of land. Even in endorsement of Karmchari, there is interpolation in the area as well as year; hence the said document is fabricated and not trustworthy, as such no relief should be granted to the Petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that the claim of 4 2025:JHHC:12671 the Petitioner is that the land in question was obtained by father of petitioner Late Anokhelal Rawat by way of Hukumnama by Bunda Bai. However, as per Respondents the land in question is Gair Majurwa Khas land which belongs to the Government.
It further transpires that there is no order of Competent authority for issuance of rent receipts and further the "Sada Hukumnama" is not corroborated by any zamindari return.
7. It further appears from records that the Respondents have filed supplementary counter affidavit pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by this Court. In the said affidavit, specific reply with respect to Annexure 2 & Annexure 6 has been made stating therein that there is nothing in Annexure-2 which can co-relate the documents with the land in question as after perusal of entire document, it cannot be said that the said document is for the Plot No. 1658. Moreover, the compensation is only given for the trees and not for land.
8. Further, so far as Annexure 6 is concerned; from bare perusal of Annexure-6, it clearly transpires that interpolation has been done in the column of area of land. Even in the endorsement of Karmchari, there is interpolation in the area and as well as in year.
5
2025:JHHC:12671 Hence, the argument of the Respondents is having force that the said document is fabricated and not trustworthy and hence cannot be relied upon.
9. Even otherwise, it further transpires from the impugned order that during proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Petitioner did not produce the copy of order passed in mutation case; as such this Court finds that no relief can be granted to this Petitioner.
Moreover, since there is interpolation in the documents relied upon by the Petitioner, veracity of the same cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction and the proper forum for the same is Civil Court having jurisdiction.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost. Pending I.As, if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/ N.A.F.R 6