Jharkhand High Court
Jamiruddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2019
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.4810 of 2015
--------
1. Jamiruddin Ansari, s/o Late Sohan Mian,
2. Aliman Khatoon, w/o Jamiruddin Ansari, Both are r/o Vill. Dhujadih, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, Distt. Giridih.
...... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Giridih.
3. The Add. Collector Giridih, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Giridih.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumri P.O. & P.S. Dumri, Distt. Giridih.
5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) Giridih, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Giridih.
6. The Circle Officer, Dumri, P.O. & P.S. Dumri, Distt. Giridih.
...... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. V.N. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.-III
: Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III
----------------------------
th
07/Dated 17 December, 2019
1. Heard Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, assisted by Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand.
2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih as well as the Additional Collector, Giridih in Case No.05/14-15 L.R. 05/2014-15 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has been refused to grant the raiyati right of the petitioners over the land under question.
3. Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the land of Khata No.49/68 appertaining to Khata No.117/286 having Thana No.101 measuring an area of 2.00 decimals situated in village Dhujadih, P.O. & P.S. Dumri, Distt. Giridih has been settled in the name of Shah Mohammad in the year 1945 by the then landlord Janab Manager Saheb Bahadur, Ward and Encumburd Estate Hazaribagh vide Hukumnama the said Hukumnama is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
He further submits that the petitioners are paying rent and receipt of the land in question has also been granted by the Ward and Encumburd Estate Hazaribagh in the name of settlee Shah Mohammad. He further [2] submits that after vesting of the Zamindari, the name of the settlee Shah Mohammad has entered in the Serista of State Government in respect of the land in question in Demand Register-II after thorough verification by the concerned authority and receipt of the land under question has been granted in the name of Shah Mohammad from the date of vesting of Zamindari to the year 2009 which is annexed as Annexure-3 series to the writ petition.
He further submits that in the recent survey and settlement operation the banda purcha in respect of the land under question has been prepared in the name of settlee Shah Mohammad after thorough verification and taking into consideration, Shah Mohammad has the perfect right, interest and possession over the land under question. He further submits that the petitioners have purchased the land under question vide Registered Deed from the heirs of the settlee Shah Mohammad according to their share vide Sale Deed No.11595 dated 26.11.2009 and the petitioners after execution of the said sale deed came to the perfect right, title, interest and possession over the land under question which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
Thereafter, the petitioners have applied before the Circle Officer, Dumri to enter their names in the Serista of State of Jharkhand through verification and after inviting the objection the name of the petitioners have entered in the Demand Register-II vide Dakhil Kharij Case No.872/2009-10 and granted the rent receipt in the name of the petitioners which is annexed as Annexure-6 & 6/A to the writ petition.
He further submits that the petitioners have made a plan to construct a Super Speciality Hospital over the land under question along with the other land which is also in the name of the petitioners adjacent to the land under question for which they applied before the competent authority for sanctioning the map etc. The authority after considering the every corner including the title of the land under question granted the map for construct the hospital in the name of the petitioners named and style as 'Meena Hospital'.
He further submits that the petitioners have also taken the loan amount from the Bank of India of Rs.2,60,00,000/- for the purpose of the construction of the aforesaid hospital for which the bank inquired about the right, title and interest of the petitioners, was found to be true. He [3] further submits that some portion of the land in question is going to be acquired by the authority of the National Highway Authority of India (N.H.A.I.) in widening of the road and for compensation against the acquiring of the land, the authorities are demanding the certificate of the Raiyati Rights from the competent authority that's why the petitioners have applied before the Circle Officer, Dumri for grant of Raiyati Rights in their names so far land under question is concerned. The Circle Officer, Dumri has opened a records bearing a Raiyati Manyata Records No.8/2014-15 and after thorough verification and collecting the report from all concerns including the report of Anchal Amin and the Circle Inspector, the Circle Officer has recommended vide his letter dated 15.09.2014 for Raiyati Manyata in the name of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Land Reform Deputy Collector after thorough verification by his order dated 13.06.2015 has also recommended in favour of the petitioners, the Sub Divisional Officer, has also recommended to grant the Raiyati Manyata in the name of the petitioners vide his order dated 10.04.2015.
He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Collector, Giridih without considering the facts and circumstances, the order of the Circle Officer, Dumri, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumri has been passed an order dated 16.06.2015 and rejected the claim of the petitioners for Raiyati Manyata. He further submits that the Circle Inspector and Anchal Amin has given report in favour of the petitioners and without verifying the facts, the Raiyati Manyata was not allowed in favour of the petitioners.
4. Per contra, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, assisted by Ms. Moushmi Chaterjee, appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the land appertaining to Khata No.49 is admittedly gairmazruwa khas lands which is being claimed by virtue of settlement by the ex-landlord from Annexures to the writ petition, it is apparent and explicit that there is no legal and valid settlement. He further submits that the settlement is being claimed on the basis of Sada Hukumnama there is no registered indenture or any return by the ex-landlord in this regard. He further submits that there is no order of assessment or opening of demand by any competent authority. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Collector [4] has rightly passed the order.
5. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered vide order dated 29.01.2018 passed in W.P.C. No.512 of 2016.
He relied upon the judgment in case of Gulabasi Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 793 wherein paragraph 6 which is being quoted herein below:
"6. Admittedly the land was recorded in the survey record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of the ex-landlord who settle the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner Ram Kewal Sahu. The ex-landlord submitted his return showing Ram Kewal Sahu as settlee and jamabandi was opened in his name. The genuineness of the record of right, the settlement made in favour of Ram Kewal Sahu and the jamabandi opened in his name was ever challenged by the State of Bihar rather in all the proceedings initiated at the instance of Baij Nath Prasad and respondent no.7 the authorities of the State decided all those proceedings in favour of the petitioner. It is well settled that once jamabandi opened in favour of a person and that continued for a number of years, it can be cancelled only by initiating a proceeding by the Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Reference may be made to a division bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Harihar Singh V. Additional Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323.
He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) PLJR 533, wherein paragraph 8 which is quoted herein below:
" 8. So far the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khiru Gope and two others Versus The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui and three others, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue.
6. At this stage, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, submits that there is distinguishing feature in the present case, therefore, the W.P.C. No.512 of 2016 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further submits that there was long jamabandi but herein in this case, the jamabandi was created only in the year 2010.
7. In the present case admittedly the jamabandi of the petitioners was created in the year 2010 and the petitioners are in possession of land in question. It is well settled that the authority concerned need to take into consideration about the possession of the land and the impugned order has [5] been passed without following procedure under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Circle Officer as well as the Land Reforms Deputy Collector have already recommended for Raiyati Manyata of the petitioners. The impugned orders have been passed without following due process of law.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.06.2015 is quashed, the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih who will provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and will pass a speaking order after following the due process of law. He will do so, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
10. In consequence thereof, I.A. No.455 of 2016 also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Madhav/-