Jharkhand High Court
Sadhna Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 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. 1002 of 2014
Sadhna Khan .... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ... Respondents
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through Video Conferencing) .........
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate.
For the respondents- State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III
......
23/ 18.02.2022.
Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Shresth Gautam on the instruction of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shresth Gautam has submitted that writ petition has been filed on 20.02.2014 for commanding upon the respondents to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records in the Kanke Anchal in relation to the lands situated at Mauza- Simalia, P.S. 139, Khata No.365, Plot No.3429, Rakba- 0.10 acres in place of her seller and issue rent receipts in her favour in pursuance to the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the court of learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No.33R 15/2009-10 whereby the order dated 28.02.2009 passed by Circle Officer, Kanke Anchal, Ranchi in Mutation Case No.3311 R 27/2008-09 has been set aside and pursuant thereto the petitioner has again filed mutation for the same land vide Mutation Case No.3324 R27/ 2018-2019/ Ratu, which was again rejected by Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi vide order dated 28.03.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shresth Gautam has further submitted that petitioner [Sadhna Khan, W/o Binay Kumar Khan, R/o 70D, Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, P.O. Ashok Nagar, District Ranchi] has purchased land situated at Mauza- Simalia, P.S. No.139, Khata No.365, Plot No.3429, Rakba- 0.10 acres vide registered Kewala No.3536/3552 dated 29.05.1988 Thereafter, application was filed for mutation of the land but the same was rejected by the Circle Officer, Kanke in terms of order dated 28.02.2009 passed in Dakhil Kharij Vad No.3311R 27/2008-09.
The order of the Circle Officer has been passed under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 which was assailed before the appellate authority under Section 15 of the Bihar Tenant's -2- Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 i.e. before the LRDC, vide Mutation Appeal No.33R 15/2009-10, which was allowed on 01.10.2012, as such, in view of Section 15(3) subject to the provisions of Section 16, the order of the Land Reform Deputy Collector on appeal shall be final.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shresth Gautam has further submitted that revision can be filed before the Collector, but revision should be preferred within statutory period of 30 days in view of proviso to Section 16, which reads as follows:-
"provided that Collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within 30 days from the date of order."
Since no application for revision has been preferred by the Circle Officer against the order of the appellate authority i.e. Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated 01.10.2012, the order of the appellate authority attains finality in view of Section 15(3) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shresth Gautam has further submitted that thereafter the petitioner being a poor lady has filed an application before the Circle Officer, Kanke, which was also registered as Mutation Case No.3324 R 27/2018-19 Ratu, which was rejected on 28.03.2019 by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Circle Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shresth Gautam has relied upon judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahabir Mahto & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in LPA No.316 of 2011 at para 24, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"24. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to mention here that the mutation proceeding may be uncontested in case of no dispute and it can be contested as is clear from Sub Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act of 1973. Therefore, a right of appeal has been given to the aggrieved party under Section 15 of the Act of 1973 and appeal against the order of the Anchal Adhikari lies before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and revisional power vests in the Collector of the District who has been given power to examine the legality and propriety of any order made under the Act of 1973 or Rules made thereunder by any authority. However, nature of the order which may attain finality by order passed in the appeal under Section 15 or in revision under Section 16 will remain the same of fiscal nature having limited effect. After attaining finality of the order which were referred above, the Anchal Adhikari is required to give effect to the order under Section 18 by making correction in Continuous Khatian and Tenants' Ledger Register and is required to forward the copies of the corrected entries thereof to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shresth Gautam has further submitted that because of the circumstances mentioned above since nothing has been done as the petitioner has been forced to move before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III -3- has submitted that counter-affidavit has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand on 20.12.2021 annexing the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi as contained in Letter No.4671/ confidential dated 14.12.2021 whereby recommendation has been made against the then Circle Officer, who has passed the order in Dakhil Kharij Vad No.3311R 27/2008-09, which was set aside by the appellate court of learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No.33R 15/2009-10.
Considering the submission made by the parties and perusing the materials brought on record, this Court is surprised to see such order. If that officer has been recommended for proceeding then it was incumbent upon the officer to recommend the name of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Circle Officer, Ratu, who pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi has again rejected the Mutation Case No.3324 R 27/2018-19 Ratu. This Court is surprise to see such report as instead of punishing the Circle Officer, Kanke, who has not complied provision of Section 15(3) of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 in letter and spirit by filing a revision under Section 16 of the Act, 1973 within 30 days. In view of Section 18 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, which reads as follows:-
"18. Correction of continuous Khatian and Tenant's Ledger Register- After the expiry of the period of appeal fixed under clause (iii) of sub-Section (4) of Section 15 of Section 15 or revision under Section 16 and in case an appeal or revision has been preferred after the disposal of such appeal or revision, the Anchal Adhikari shall cause to be made necessary correction in the prescribed manner in the continuous Khatian and Tenant's Ledger Register and forward copies of the corrected entries thereof to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector who shall get the copies of the said registers corrected accordingly."
However, in view of doctrine of merger (i.e. previous and subsequent case) coupled with Section 18 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, it appears to this Court that the Circle Officer, Kanke, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who has not complied the order of LRDC, Sadar, Ranchi as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Circle Officer, Ratu, who subsequently rejected the Mutation case of the petitioner vide Mutation Case No.3324 R 27/2018-19/Ratu on 28.03.2019 are the officers, who have no respect for the law and atleast for the land revenue.
The State may initiate a proceeding against these officers, in accordance with law and until the State comes to a clear finding that these officers are not -4- deliberately doing such things, they should not be given any field posting to destroy the record of another revenue circle, it appears from the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi on the basis of enquiry submitted by Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Ranchi contained in Letter No.4477(ii) dated 13.12.2021. This Court is of the opinion that complete mess has been created in the revenue side as one LRDC is reviewing the order of another LRDC as it appears from the report dated 13.12.2021, reviewing the order of earlier LRDC dated 01.10.2012 passed in Appeal No.33R/15/2009-10.
This Court has considered, that such reports are not in accordance with the order dated 29.11.2021. It is relevant to mention here that in view of Section 15(3) of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the order dated 01.10.2012 passed in Mutation Appeal No.33R/15/2009-10, which attains finality as no revision was filed within 30 days under Section 16 and thus, on the basis of doctrine of merger as stated above and in view of Section 18 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, it was incumbent upon the subsequent Circle Officer, who were posted at Kanke and Ratu to comply the same.
This shows that the LRDC, who has submitted the report dated 13.12.2021 and the Circle Officer, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra who has passed order in Mutation Case No.3324 R 27/2018-19/ Ratu along with the Circle Officer, Kanke, pursuant to order of the LRDC are equally responsible in not upholding the law in letter and spirit as mentioned in Sections 14, 15, specially 15(3) and non-compliance of Section 16 followed by consequences mentioned under Section 18 of the Act.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State, that Mutation Case No.3324 R 27/2018-19/Ratu, has been rejected because the relevant documents are not appended with the same. This Court feels that rejection is being done because of non-furnishing of the document, but the Circle Officer was not vigilant about the order, which has been passed by the appellate authority and has to comply it either by taking recourse of Section 16 and if not, then Section 18, as such, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand is directed to take action in accordance with law and inform this Court about such action. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is allowed.
-5-It goes without saying that Circle Officer must comply Section 18 of the Act within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This order is being passed in presence of the learned Additional Advocate General- III, who shall inform the concerned authority. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand.
R.S. (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)