Jharkhand High Court
Ilaychi Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 June, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.14 of 2023
------
Ilaychi Devi, W/o Praful Singh, R/o Village Murkhari, P.O. Murkhari, P.S.
Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khorimahuwa, District Giridih.
4. The Circle Officer, Jamua, Giridih.
5. Avinash Singh @ Abhinash Singh, S/o late Jayotish Singh, R/o Village
Murkhari, P.O. Murkhari, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand.
6. Brinda Singh, S/o late Ruplal Singh, R/o Village Murkhari, P.O.
Murkhari, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Advocate.
Mr. Akafa Anand, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC Mr. A.K. Mahato, Advocate.
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III
------
08 /21.06.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"For issuance of appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s and particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the entire proceeding related to the Mutation Appeal No- 2/2019-20 and order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure-02) passed by the Respondent No.03 the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khorimahuwa in Mutation Appeal No-2/2019-20 whereby and whereunder the Mutation Appeal preferred by the private respondent no.05 has been allowed setting aside the order dated 03.03.2019 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamua in Mutation Case No.1970/2018-19 pertaining to land of the petitioner situated at Mauza- Murkhari, Khata No.-25 Plot Nos.-1270, 1271 & 1272, area- 40 decimal without arraying petitioner as party or without giving notice to her in the Mutation Appeal No-2/2019-20.
AND / OR 1 For issuance of direction commanding upon the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khorimahuwa the Respondent No.03 and the Circle Officer, Jamua, the Respondent No.04 to stay further proceeding in order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure-02) passed by the Respondent No.03 the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khorimahuwa in Mutation Appeal No-2/2019-20 during the pendency of the present writ petition.
AND / OR The petitioner further prays to pass any other order/s, direction/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land appertaining to Khata No.25, Plot Nos.1270, 1271, 1272 having area of 17, 3, 20 decimals respectively, of Jamua Anchal, Halka No.IV, Bhag 20, Thana No.0397, in the District of Giridih was mutated in the name of this petitioner. A correction slip was also issued which is evident from page-35 and rents were duly been accepted by the State but suddenly without impleading the petitioner as a party or without issuing the petitioner any notice and without giving opportunity of hearing, his Jamabandi has been cancelled at the instance of the private respondents.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein they have taken a plea that against the cancellation of the Jamabandi, the petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy which he had not availed. He submits that there is a statutory remedy of appeal which the petitioner should avail and thus, this writ application is not maintainable.
5. The private respondents appeared and submitted that the petitioner has claimed title over the land in question by virtue of a sale deed but prior to the execution of the said sale deed, respondent No.5 had purchased the land. Thus, there is no illegality in cancellation of the Jamabandi, which stood in the name of the petitioner. 2
6. During course of argument, both the State and private respondent accepted the fact that while passing the impugned order cancellation of Jamabandi and the appellate order, the petitioner was neither noticed nor he was impleaded as a party.
7. After hearing the parties, I find that the land in question stood mutated in favour of the petitioner, which is apparent from page-35 of Annexure-1 (Series). The correction slip was issued in the name of this petitioner and the rent was also accepted. The impugned order is at Annexure-2. From the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner was not even made a party in mutation proceeding, neither he was heard. In para-12 and 15 of the writ application, this petitioner has taken a specific plea that he has not been made a party in mutation proceeding nor he was heard and the land stood mutated in his favour. The State in their Counter Affidavit has not disputed the aforesaid submission. They had only stated that the statements made in para-12 & 15 of the writ petition are matter of record. The fact remains that it is an admitted case now that the petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the impugned order. Since, there is violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not even heard before the impugned order was passed, which cancelled the mutation of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 is bad in law and is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Now the question is whether it would be proper to remand the matter to the authority concerned, who passed the aforesaid order.
9. From the argument of the parties, I am of the opinion that both the parties are claiming title over the land in question. Thus, the issue is the question of title which needs to be decided. Since respondent No.5 and the petitioner is claiming title, the revenue officials are not the appropriate authority to decide the question of title. It is only the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction who can decide and declare the title in 3 favour of either of the party. It is also well settled proposition of law that recording of name of the person in the revenue records does not confer title and is not a proof of title. Thus, I direct respondent No.5 to approach the Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction, if he want to claim right, title and interest over the property in question, as he is disputing the mutation of the petitioner and claiming independent title than that of the petitioner.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2 4