Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Shekhar Singh & Others vs State Of Jhakhand & Others on 2 August, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 959 of 2019
........
Chandra Shekhar Singh & Others .... ..... Petitioners Versus State of Jhakhand & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I. ........
06/02.08.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 28.02.2002, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh in C.R.R. No. 05/2001, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of petitioners with respect to an area measuring 14 decimals, appertaining to Plot No. 3194 of Khata No. 226 situated at Village - Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District - Ramgarh, which has been purchased by the petitioners by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.06.1982 from its rightful owner thereof and the lands measuring 0.07 5/6 acres appertaining to Plot No. 3191 and 3194 of Khata No. 226 situated at Village - Ramgarh, P.O., P.S., District - Ramgarh, which has been acquired by the petitioners by virtue of WILL executed by Bhanu Bala Devi in favour of the petitioners, which has been entered in the revenue record and rent receipts were duly issued by the revenue authorities, has been cancelled on an application filed by the respondent nos. 9 & 10 Yogesh Singh and Yasoda Singh, which is bad in law. The appeal preferred by the petitioners vide Case No. 24/2002 has also been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 10.03.2006 and same has wrongly been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Divison, Hazaribagh vide order dated 27.12.2018 passed in Revision Case No. 139/2006, whereby the revision application of the petitioners has also been rejected.
-2-Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State has taken a stand in the counter affidavit at para-7 to 13, whereby they have entered into the title of the petitioners, which is not the duty of the revenue authority.
Para-7 to 13 of the counter-affidavit may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the case is related with lands of Khata No. 266, Plot No. 3191 & 3194 area measuring 0.05 acres and 0.44 acres respectively under Mouza Ramgarh which has been recorded in Khatiyan in the name of Sambhu Singh, Son of Raghunath Singh as Belagan who died leaving his three son namely Makund Singh, Pawan Singh and Amar Singh.
8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh has reported to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh vide his Letter No. 1142 dated 19.10.2001 in CRR Case No. 05/2001 as found mentioned in Annexure-7 of the writ petition that all three sons of Khatiyani raiyat of the land in question sold and transferred 45 decimals out of 49 decimals to parent of Yugesh Singh vide different sale deed within 1961 to 1964 and purchased got assessed rent in their names and zamabandi opened in their name and they are holding peaceful and constructive possession over same.
9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that after such transaction and opening of Zambandi Pratap Singh son of Pawan Singh sold 14 decimals land of Plot No. 3194 Khata No. 266 to Chandra Shekar Singh and Others vide Registered Deed No. 2283/18-6 and on instant of Bhunabala Devi, Wife of Amar Singh got opened zamabandi in her name vide mutation by partition case no. 92/2001 for 7 5/6 decimal of Plot No. 3191 and 3194 of same Khata.
10. That it is stated and submitted that in light of above facts zamabandi opened for much more than actual area of Plot No. 3191 and 3194 which is illegal under law and revenue authorities are competent to rectify the entry of revenue record if found enter as wrong.
11. That it is ingredient under revenue law for issuance of rent receipt that petitioners must have peaceful possession on land in question and writ petitioners were / are not in possession -3- over the same and zamabandi entered in their name in revenue record was collusive and not according to law, hence S.D.O., Ramgarh cancelled the Zamabandi of the petitioners.
12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against said order before Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag which registered bearing Case No. 24/2002 and after full length hearing appeal was dismissed than revision was filed in the Court of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag against order of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag passed in Case No. 24 of 2002 and same also dismissed on 27.12.2018.
13. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the order passed by S.D.O. Ramgarh and Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Hazaribag is absolutely correct and in accordance to law."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 1980 BBCJ 373 (Shri Kalut Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & Ors,), wherein it has been held that the Sub Divisional Officer has got no jurisdiction to cancel the long standing Jamabandi.
Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. to learned S.C. (L&C)-I, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar has submitted that though the State has filed counter affidavit, but there is defect in the writ petition with regard to filing of the impugned order along with authentication fees and as such, notice may be issued upon respondent nos. 9 & 10.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that I.A. No. 1682/2022 has been filed to ignore the defect as the Certified Copy has not been handed over to the petitioners.
Considering the same, interlocutory application shall be heard at the time of final adjudication of the writ petition.
Let notice be issued upon respondent no. 9 namely, Yogesh Singh, son of Late Gauri Nath Singh & respondent no. 10 namely, Yasoda Singh, son of Late Praduman Singh, both residents of Bengali Tola, P.O., P.S. and District - Ramgarh, under the Speed -4- Post, for which requisites etc. must be filed by Friday i.e. 05.08.2022.
Put up this case after service of notice.
The impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh is hereby stayed.
Petitioner is directed to obtain the certified copy of Annexure- 7 and file the same along with authentication fees.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-