Jharkhand High Court
Shrimandar Kumar Jain vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 31 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)BLJR2417, 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 763, 2003 A I H C 2317, (2003) 1 JLJR 12, (2002) 3 JCR 726 (JHA), (2003) 3 ALLINDCAS 416 (JHA), 2002 BLJR 3 2417
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Order dated 8.10.93, 18.11.93 and 20.11.93 passed by respondent No. 3 Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Dhanbad in Mutation Appeal No. 44/93 whereby the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of mutations was allowed.
2. Petitioner claimed to have purchased the lands of various plots under Khata No. 53 and 107 in Mouza Parki, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad by registered sale-deed dated 9.11.1971. After purchase, petitioner alleged to have come in possession and paying rent to the State of Bihar. In the year 1984, one Arbind Kumar Singh and others tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner by demolishing the boundary wall and accordingly petitioner filed Title Suit No. 50 of 1984 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Dhanbad and ex parte decrees was passed against the defendant Arbind Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar Singh. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in clandestine manner got their name mutated for the above land and consequently rent receipts were said to have" issued in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner then filed Mutation case before the Circle Officer, Govindpur being Mutation Case No. 130(IV) of 1991-92. The Circle Officer rejected the prayer for mutation and passed the order dated 30.5.92. Petitioner aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal before respondent No. 2 Additional Collector who entertained the appeal as Mutation Appeal No. 26/92 and finally set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer and remanded the matter to the Circle Officer with a direction to pass a fresh order. Petitioner and the concerned respondent after remand appeared before the Circle Officer who after hearing the parties passed final order holding that petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land and consequently the Circle Officer cancelled the Jama Bandi standing in the name of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and directed opening of Jama Bandi in the name of the petitioner. The concerned respondent aggrieved by the said order of the Circle Officer preferred appeal before respondent No. 3 Land Reforms Deputy Collector who after giving notice to the parties set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer and held that cancellation of Jama Bandi in the name of respondents in wholly illegal and unjustified. Petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order in the instant writ petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Merathia, learned senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Mr. A.N. Deo, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and the learned G.P. 1.
4. As noticed above, petitioner's case is that he purchased the land in 1971 and thereafter, came in possession of the same and started paying rent to the State of Bihar. There is no averment in the writ petition that petitioner got his name mutated in the revenue record and a Jama Bandi was opened in his name. Petitioner's further case is that in the year 1984 some interference was made by one Manoj Kumar Singh and Arbind Kumar Singh relating to possession of the land and against the Jama Bandi, Petitioner obtained ex parte decree in Title Suit No. 50/84. Admittedly these two persons are not the respondents in the instant writ petition.
5. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that they became rightful owner of the land having been purchased from the recorded raiyat and Jama Bandi was opened in their name and the concerned respondent started paying rent to the State of Bihar. It further appears that before 1992 Jama Bandi in the name of predecessor in interest of the concerned respondent was running vide Mutation Case No. 58 of 1988-89. It is rather surprising as to how the Circle Officer cancelled the Jama Bandi running in the name of concerned respondent and directed for opening a Jarna Bandi in the name of the petitioner. In my opinion, the Deputy Collector rightly held in the impugned order that cancellation of Jama Bandi by the Circle Officer was illegal and wholly without jurisdiction.
6. Besides the above, from the averment made by the parties in their respective affidavits it appears that the dispute is with regard title and possession over the land in question. In such a situation and particularity when the Jama Bandi was running in the name of the concerned respondent the proper remedy for the petitioner is to get his title adjudicated by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. If the petitioner succeeds in the suit then that will be binding both the parties and also upon the State of Bihar and accordingly fresh fresh Jama Bandi will be opened in the name of the successful party. For the present, I do not find any serious illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Collector.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. However, before parting with the order, I must observe here that I have not gone into the title of the parties in respect of the land in question and I have not expressed any opinion in favour of any of the parties with regard to title and possession and the same shall be decided by the Civil Court in the event the suit is brought by the aggrieved party.