Jharkhand High Court
Mithila Sahakari Grih Nirman Sahyog ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 25 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(3)JCR336(JHR)]
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 3.6.2002 and the order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi whereby proceeding for cancellation of settlement of land in question has been decided against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner's case is that one Jag-dish Prasanna Nath Sahadeo was the recorded Khewatdar of lands of Khata No. 119 and Khata No. 113 of village-Bazra, P.S. Ranchi now Sukhdeo Nagar. The said landlord settled 22.75 acres of land-comprised within R.S. Plot No. 226 under Khata No. 119 and 9.18 acres comprised within R.S. Plot No. 228 of Khata No. 113 in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh by delivery possession followed by a hukumnama dated 2.2.1952. The said Ishwar Dayal Singh said to have paid rent to the ex-landlord who after vesting of the ex-intermediary interest under the Provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, filed return in which Ishwar Dayal Singh was shown settlee in respect of the land so settled with him.
3. It is contended that jamabandiwas created in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh and demand was opened in his name and his name was duly entered in the tenant ledger (Annexure-II). The said Ishwar Dayal Singh sold various portion of lands in favour of the petitioner-society for the purpose of construction of residential building for the members of the society. Petitioner- society altogether purchased 31.91 acres of land of R.S.Plot No. 226 of Khata No. 119 and R.S. Plot No. 228 of Khata. No. 113 and on the basis; of said purchase got its name mutated before the Circle Officer. Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 1067 R-27/1983-84. Petitioner's case is that the Circle Officer suo motu initiated a proceeding against the petitioner/vendor Ishwar Dayal Singh for cancellation of jamabandi, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 30/1993-94. Petitioner came to know about the said proceeding, appeared before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and submitted document showing purchase and mutation. The file of the cancellation proceeding from one table to another and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2002 and directed for cancellation of settlement for cancellation of settlement under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Lands Reforms Act, 1950. The said order was affirmed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division Ranchi on an appeal being preferred by the petitioner.
4. Respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the land of Khata No. 119 Plot No. 226 and 228 stands recorded as Gairmazarua Malik land in the Revisional Survey Record of right. The demand of the land was running in favour of the petitioner Mithila Grih Nirman Sahyog Samitee on the basis of Mutation Case No. 1067 R.27/1983-84 and Mutation Case No. 228 R.27/1984-85. It is stated that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was initiated against Ishwar Dayal Singh for cancellation of jamabandi who acquired land by Sada hukumnama from the ex-landlord and as such the Circle Officer forwarded the above case record to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of jamabandi. The Deputy Commissioner heard the parties and held that transfer of the land by settlee in favour of the society was done for the purpose of defeating provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Consequently the Deputy Commissioner passed the order of annulment of transfer of land in question, which is perfectly legal and. valid.
5. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel No. 2.1 have also perused the original record called for from the respondents.
6. As noticed above, admittedly the land as settled with Ishwar Dayal Singh in the year 1952 by the ex-landlord by delivery of possession coupled with grant of rent receipt and execution of hukumnama dated 2.2.1952. It has also not been disputed that jamabandi was created in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh and demand was opened in his name. It has also not been disputed that petitioner-society purchased the land in question measuring an area of 31.91, acres of R.S. Plot No.226 and 228 by virtue of several sale deeds of the year 1983. After said purchase, mutation application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 1067 R.27/ 1983-84 and rent receipts have been granted and since then petitioner has been continuously paying rent to the State of Bihar.
7. From perusal of Annexure-4, it appears that a notice was issued in the year 1994 against Ishwar Dayal singh for cancellation of Jamabandi in respect of only 11 acres of land of Plot No. 226 and 228. It has not been disputed by the respondents that in 1994 Ishwar Dayal Singh was not alive. From perusal of the original record of the cancellation proceeding, it appears that when the record was placed before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, he made an enquiry and passed a reasoned order on 28.12.1998 holding that question of cancellation of jamabandi does not arise and the file is liable to be closed. It further appears that from the record that again the Land Reforms Deputy Collector recommended for initiation of cancellation proceeding in terms of order dated 18.8.1999 and the record was sent to the Sub-Division Officer and thereafter to the Additional Collector for passing appropriate order. In the year 2000 again a notice was issued from office of the Deputy Commissioner against the deceased Ishwar Dayal Singh for cancellation of jamabadni in respect of 11 acres of land of Plot No. 226 and 228. The Deputy Commissioner however, by the impugned order directed for cancellation of jamabandi in respect of the entire land, which was running in the name of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner refused to rely upon the hukumnama dated 2.2.1952 only because it was an unregistered document and the hukumnama was followed by grant of only few rent receipts.
8. The approach of he Deputy Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. As noticed above, in the counter affidavit it was admitted by the respondents that the ex-landlord settled the land in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh in the year 1952 and thereafter jamabandi was opened in his name and his name was entered in all the revenue records. The respondents throughout recognized Ishwar Dayal Singh as genuine settlee till the land was sold to the petitioner. Not only that after vesting of the Zamindari, the rent was assessed in the name of Ishwar Dayal Singh who continuously remain in possession of the land which Is evident from the rent receipt granted by the respondents. The said Ishwar Dayal Singh thereafter sold the land to the petitioner, in 1983 and on the basis of said purchase petitioner was also recognized as the owner and in possession of the land which is also evident from the fact that petitioner's name was entered in the Revenue Records vide Mutation Proceeding referred to herein above.
9. It is well settled that if a person claims to have obtained raiyati interest by virtue of an unregistered document and further assert that he came into actual possession of the same and has continued in such possession and payment of rent has been accepted by the landlord, then his title to raiyati interest must be recognized even though hukumnama or unregistered lease is inadmissible into evidence. It is equally well settled that it is open to a landlord to create tenancy by giving possession and acceptance of rent and hence such tenancy can be proved by evidence other than that of unregistered hukumnama by which the tenant take settlement.
10. In the instant case as noticed above, the possession of ex- landlord and thereafter Ishwar Dayal Singh and then petitioner has never been disputed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, cancellation of jamabandi by the Deputy Commissioner by passing Impugned order cannot be sustained In law.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ application are quashed.