Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Mahto vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(4)JCR200(JHR)], 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 752, (2006) 4 JCR 200 (JHA) (2006) 4 JLJR 247, (2006) 4 JLJR 247
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
1. The Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 2.7.1997 (Annexure 3) passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Revenue Revision No. 57 of 1995 rejecting the revision of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 2.5.1995 (Annexure 2) passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Mutation Appeal Case No. 42 of 1994, by which the appeal filed by respondent No. 6 Tisco Limited was allowed and the order dated 15.2.1993 passed in Rent Assessment Case No. 145 of 1992-93 by the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, Hazaribagh assessing Korkar rent under Section 67-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the name of the Petitioner was set aside.
2. By order dated 12 4.2006, Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners did not press this Writ Petition on behalf of the then petitioners No. 2 and 3, namely, Mannu Mahto and Ghannu Mahto and, accordingly, this Writ Petition was dismissed so far as these two Petitioners were concerned.
3. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. Prasad submitted that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, after issuance of general notice, considering the report of the Circle Officer and after the spot verification, allowed the petitioner's application for fixation of Korkar rent by order dated 15.2.1993. But in the appeal filed by the Tisco, the said order was set aside on 2.5.1995 (Annexure 2). The petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner but the same was also rejected by order dated 2.7.1997 (Annexure 3).
4. Mr. Prasad submitted that there were several cases of several persons and without considering the individual case of the petitioner, the order passed in other cases were wrongly applied to the case of the petitioner by the appellate authority the Additional Collector. He further submitted that the Revisional authority should have remanded the matter, if he found that the orders of fixation of rent were bad. He himself should not have decided the matter. He further submitted that Tisco could not file appeal. Only the State Government being the landlord could file appeal. He further submitted that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, Tisco purchased the land from one Dhano Mahto who had no paddy land.
5. Mr. Mehta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that as the property was leased out for mining purposes, only the Tisco Limited was concerned with the said land and if it was aggrieved by any order affecting the said lease, Tisco was justified in filing appeal.
6. Mr. Mehta, for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Debi Prasad for the Tisco Limited supported the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. It was submitted by Mr. Debi Prasad that the entire rent fixation proceeding including the actions taken therein by the Circle Officer, Halka Karamchari and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector were questioned by Tisco before the Additional Collector. Tisco was granted mining lease as far back as in the year 1946-47 and was in occupation of the lands in question, but it was not made party in the said proceeding for fixation of Korkar rent. It was submitted that after hearing the parties, the appellate authority rightly set aside the order of fixation of rent. In the revisions filed by the petitioner and others, the Commissioner considered the entire matter and passed an elaborate order in which he found that in mala fide manner Korkar rent was fixed and Parcha were issued in favour of several persons, for the land held under the mining lease by Tisco.
7. With reference to Section 217 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the judgment reported in Bishram Sahu v. Bhairo Oraon and Ors. 1987 BLT (Rep), 303 (Pat)(RB), it was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the revisional authority has got wide power for correcting the errors of law and also the errors of fact. In exercising such power, the Commissioner relied on the joint enquiry report of the Revenue Officials up to Circle Officers which was prepared after giving opportunity to local people. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner's revision was rightly rejected as his land was found overlapping in map. Mr. Debi Prasad further submitted that if Tisco settled the dispute with some persons, it cannot debar it from contesting this Writ Petition. It was also submitted that the land was not a Gair Majarua land as the same was given to Tisco under the mining lease and, as such, no Korkar rent could be fixed in respect of such lands.
8. I find force in the submission of Mr. Debi Prasad, appearing for respondent No. 6 In the proceedings before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Tisco was not made party. Tisco, being the mining lessee, aggrieved by the said orders, was justified in filing the appeals. The lands were not Gair Majarua lands as the same were given to Tisco under mining lease. The Commissioner found that the Revenue Officials fixed Korkar rents in arbitrary and mala fide manner in favour of several persons. The appellate authority and the revisional authority have considered the entire matter and passed the orders on relevant considerations, which do not call for interference.
9. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the Writ Petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.