Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Chancla Devi on 19 August, 2017
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, D.N. Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 142 of 2010
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Kutchary Road,
P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Sadar, Kutchary
Road, P.O.- GPO, P.S. -Kotwali, District-Ranchi
4. The Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi
University, P.S.Misirgonda, District-Ranchi
..........Appellants
Vs.
Chancla Devi W/o Sri Dineshwar Prasad, Resident of
Manerwala, Piska More, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.- Sukhdeo
Nagar, District-Ranchi ..........Respondent
with
L.P.A. No. 307 of 2009
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi
4. The Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi
.............Appellants
Vs.
Dineshwar Prasad, son of Shri Sarju Prasad, Resident of
Manerwala, Piska More, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.- Sukhdeo
Nagar, District-Ranchi ...............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
----------
For the Appellants: Mr. V.K. Prasad, S.C.( L&C)
Mr. Amit Kumar Verma
J.C. to S.C.( L&C)
(In both the cases )
For the respondent: None
(In both the cases )
----------
th
08/Dated: 19 August,2017
Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J. (Oral Judgment)
1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the
State of Jharkhand being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by
the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge
in WP(C) No. 2900 of 2007 dated 17.06.2008 and in WP(C)
No. 4452 of 2008 dated 28.05.2009, whereby the petitions
2
preferred by the petitioners were allowed and the cancellation
of the mutation entry by the Government was set aside.
Mutation entry in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioner was running in the name of Rang Nath Sahu from
1955-1956 from whom the petitioners purchased the property
by registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and dated
07.07.1992respectively and in their names also the mutation entry was running from the year 1992 onwards. Thus, basically the old mutation entry of the year 1955-1956 has been cancelled in the year 2002 by the Government and, later on, such order has been confirmed by the Revenue Authorities. This cancellation of the mutation entries have been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judges in both the aforesaid writ petitions and hence, these Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand.
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the land in question is pertaining to R.S. Khata No. 194, Plot No. 3683, ad-measuring 20 decimals of land of Village Simalia, Thana No. 739, District-Ranchi for WP(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and another land is of the same plot for 20 decimals ( WP(C) No. 4452 of 2008).
3. These lands were purchased by the husband (petitioner of WP(C) No. 2900 of 2007) and by wife ( WP(C) No. 4452 of 2008) by registered sale deeds from Rang Nath Sahu.
4. It appears that Rang Nath Sahu obtained the land from Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo. Originally 12 Acres of land was settled by Ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo on 09.06.1942 in favour of Rang Nath Sahu and this Rang Nath Sahu sold 20 decimals of land to the petitioner of WP(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and 20 decimals of land to the petitioner of WP(C) No. 4452 of 2008 by registered sale deeds nos. 4313 dated 04.05.1992 and by another registered sale deed dated 07.07.1992.
5. It further appears from the facts of the case that 3 Chanchala Devi and Dineshwar Prasad are the husband and wife and in their names, the mutation entries were also carried out. From 1955-1956 the mutation entry was in the name of Rang Nath Sahu. After coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the rent has been assessed in the name of Rang Nath Sahu in Case No. A-29/1955-1956 and Jamabandi No. 194/624 was created in the name of Rang Nath Sahu.
6. After purchasing of the lands in question by husband and wife, who are the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the Mutation Case no. 183R 27/1993-1994 was filed and the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi allowed the said case and mutation entry was made in favour of both the petitioners.
7. Thus, it appears from the facts of the case that originally Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo settled the land in favour of Rang Nath Sahu on 09.06.1942. After the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the assessment was also made in the name of Rang Nath Sahu from 1955 -1956. The Mutation entries and revenue records reveal the name of Rang Nath Sahu from whom the petitioners of both the writ petitions, purchased the part of the land i.e. 20 decimals + 20 decimals by two different sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and 07.07.1992 and in their names also, orders have been passed by the Circle Officer for carrying out the mutation entries in the name of purchasers in the year 1993-1994.
8. These entries have been cancelled in the year 2002 because one Halka Karamchari has given a report that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. This one line report of Halka Karamchari has given birth to several litigations which has led to two Letters Patent Appeals by the State.
9. It appears from the facts of the case that the presumption on the part of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land is not permissible in the eyes of law. If the State Government is 4 claiming the ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the original petitioners and which is in possession of the predecessor-in-title from 09.06.1942, the Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State of Jharkhand. They cannot drag the citizens to be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. Burden of proof that the State is owner of the property in question lies upon the State Government. The defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. There is vast difference between burden of proof for the plaintiff and for the defendant. The purchasers of the property by the registered sale deeds in the year 1992 from their predecessor-in-title Rang Nath Sahu, who is owner of the property from 09.06.1942, cannot be upset by a report of Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. Prima-facie, no fraud has been played by the purchasers of the property who are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Likewise, prima-facie, Rang Nath Sahu is the owner of the property, looking to the revenue entry from 1995-1956. Thus, more than 30 years old entries and documents cannot be upset by or cannot be brushed aside by one line report of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008 and we see no reason to take any other view to what is taken by the learned Single Judges in both the writ petitions.
10. Counsel for the State has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Labendra Chand Bothra reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 21 (SC). Looking to the facts of the present case, the ratio decidendi propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Remarkably, different facts of the present case are as under:-
5(a) Ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo settled the land in favour of Rang Nath Sahu on 09.06.1942.
(b) After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the rent was assessed in the name of Rang Nath Sahu in case no. A-29/1955-1956 and also Jamabandi No. 194/624 was created in the name of Rang Nath Sahu.
(c) This Jamabandi/mutation entry continued for years together and decades together. Nothing was suppressed and nothing was exaggerated by Rang Nath Sahu. Mutation Entries were in the custody of the Revenue Officers. Everything has been accepted by the State for several years and several decades.
(d) Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008, who are the husband and wife have purchased small piece of land ad-measuring 20 decimals each from Rang Nath Sahu by registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and 07.07.1992.
(e) They applied for mutation entry and the application was treated as Mutation Case No. 183R 27/1993-1994 before the Circle Officer, Town, Anchal and it was allowed. Thus, mutation entries were carried out in the name of the purchasers and petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 as well as petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008 from 1993-1994.
(f) These entries have also been continued for several years and abruptly in the year 2002, Halka Karamchari, who is lowest in the rank of Revenue Offices, has made a remark that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land from the year 1942.
(g) Thus, after 60 long years, the wisest man, who is lowest in the rank, in the revenue offices of the State of Jharkhand wrote one line that the land in question is Gair Majaruwa Malik Land and the high ranking Administrative Officers of the Revenue Department build a castle upon it, which has resulted into several revenue 6 litigations and two writ petitions and two Letters Patent Appeals.
(h) Thus, it appears that the State Government is relying upon one line report given by the Halka Karamchari that land in question is a government land. If this is the stand of the government, the State Government can file a Civil Suit so that the title of the property can be decided or the ownership of the property can be decided by the competent Trial Court. Ownership can always be decided by the civil courts. There is a presumption in favour of the holder of the mutation entry, especially, when any mutation entry is much older in point of time.
11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in these Letters Patent Appeals. Hence, both the Letters Patent Appeals are hereby dismissed.
( D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) ( Ratnaker Bhengra,J.) Sharda/ Nibha N.A.F.R.