Jharkhand High Court
Doma Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 30 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. 2745 of 2011
........
Doma Mahto, son of Late Jodha Mahto, resident of Village -Chotkolma, P.O- Edalhatu, P.S.- Bundu, District- Ranchi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate.
For the Respondents/State : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III
........
06/30.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner- Doma Mahto, son of Late Jodha Mahto has preferred this writ petition for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or an order or direction for quashing an order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2, Additional Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 35 R15/2009 (Annexure-5), affirming an order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3, Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Bundu, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No 09/2007-08 (Annexure-
4) whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 4, Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi has been set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Sahani has submitted, that the case of the petitioner is that the land appertaining to RS Plot No. 1571 under RS Khata No. 173 belonged to ex-landlord Mohan Singh as Bakast land. On 12.06.1929, the ex-landlord Mohan Singh settled a portion of the said land, measuring an area of 53 decimals appertaining to RS Plot No. 1571 and 1574 both under RS Khata No. 173 in Mouza- Edalhatu to Jodha Mahto (father of the petitioner). After death of Jodha Mahto, the petitioner inherited the said land. He sold 5 decimals of land to Sushen Chandra Koiri and Victoria Devi vide registered sale of deed dated 08.01.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the respondent no. 5 namely Choudhary Mahto claimed to have purchased 15 decimals of land of Plot No. 1571 on 05.07.1975 from Jagmohan Bhagat, who alleged to have acquired the same by virtue of an alleged settlement -2- dated 29.08.1929.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that during recent survey, the name of the respondent no. 5 namely Choudhary Mahto was proposed to be entered into Record of Right. Having came to know about such fact, the petitioner filed an application under Section 23 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, which gave rise to Objection Case No. 65 of 1985. The then Assistant Settlement Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 24.03.1986 allowed the said objection of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that feeling aggrieved of the order dated 24.03.1986 passed by the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Ranchi the respondent no. 5 preferred a revision, which was registered as Bundu Revision Case No. 138 of 1987 under Section 89 of the CNT Act and in terms of order dated 12.08.1988, the aforesaid revision was dismissed by the then Charge Officer, Ranchi. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal under Section 89(2) of the CNT Act before the then Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which was registered as Survey Appeal No. 06 of 1989. The said Revenue Appeal No. 06 of 1989 has been dismissed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi on 25.08.1998. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 has filed an application before the respondent no. 4, the then Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi, which gave rise to Mutation Case No. 2 (VI)/ 1986-87 and in terms of order dated 27.03.1987, the respondent no. 4, the then Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi has rejected the claim of the respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that feeling aggrieved of the order dated 27.03.1987 passed by the respondent no. 4 (the then Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi), the respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal before the court of LRDC, Bundu, Ranchi (respondent no.3), which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 09/2007-08 and the said mutation appeal was also dismissed in terms of order dated 22.02.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that feeling aggrieved of the order dated 22.02.2008 passed by LRDC, Bundu, Ranchi, the respondent no.5 has preferred a revision before the respondent no. 2, Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was registered as Mutation Revision No. 1 R15/2008-09 and the Additional Collector, Ranchi after -3- hearing the parties remitted the matter to the respondent no.3 (LRDC, Bundu, Ranchi) in terms of order dated 26.09.2008, for passing a fresh order after holding enquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that after the remand made on 26.09.2008 by the Additional Collector, Ranchi to the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bundu, Ranchi (respondent no.3), the matter was heard by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bundu, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No.09/2007-08 and the same has been allowed in favour of the respondent no.5 in terms of order dated 27.02.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by LRDC, Bundu, Ranchi has preferred revision application before the respondent no.2, the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was registered as Mutation Revision No.35R 15/2009 and the same was dismissed in terms of order dated 28.02.2011, affirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority in favour of respondent no.5. Thereafter, the petitioner came before this Hon'ble Court on 20.05.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that once in the initial proceeding all the orders have been affirmed upto the Court of Additional Collector, Ranchi, but subsequently because of the remand made by the Additional Collector, Ranchi, the Officers have reversed the order in favour of respondent no.5. It itself shows that without any valid reason a jamabandi, which has been created in favour of the writ petitioner since the year 1958-59 has been cancelled by the Additional Collector, Ranchi on the basis of report of the Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi, wherein it has been stated that respondent no.5 is in possession of the land in question, as such, mutation has been allowed in favour of respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that in the State of Jharkhand anything can be possible in the revenue side without going through the record. In this case the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bundu, Ranchi or the Additional Collector, Ranchi has passed an order, which has already been adjudicated by the Court of Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No.06/1989 in terms of -4- order dated 25.08.1998 and as such, all the mess have been created by the Revenue authorities.
Learned counsel for the respondents /State, Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III has submitted that notice is required to be issued to the respondent no.5.
Considering the same, let the notice be issued to the respondent no.5 namely Choudhary Mahto, son of late Lilmohan Mahto, resident of Village- Chotkolma, PO- Edalhatu, P.S.- Bundu, District- Ranchi under Speed post, for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week.
Office to track the speed post.
Put up this case after service of notice.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/