Jharkhand High Court
Bisun Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 December, 2021
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 5438 of 2011
........
Bisun Pandit .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
For the Respondent/ State : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I
For the Pvt.-Res. Nos.5&6 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate.
..........
08/13.12.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary has submitted that petitioner, Bisun Pandit S/o Late Laxman Kumhar has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.08.2011 passed in Case No.53/2008- 09 by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has rejected the case of the petitioner and directed the Circle Officer, Gandey to institute a case in the concerned Police Station against the petitioner, so that proper legal action may be taken against him and the private respondent may be given possession of the land as Basgit Parcha has been issued in her favour.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that without notice to the petitioner, who is recorded tenant, the land of the petitioner with respect to Khata No.157, Keshra No.858, area-0.03 Acre, nature of land sahan was recorded in the name Smt. Sausilya Devi, W/o Basudeo Pandit, as the said land has been recommended to be settled in favour of respondent no.5 to Smt. Sausilya Devi, W/o Basudeo Pandit and the Basgit parcha has been issued in her favour without notice to the petitioner i.e. Bisun Pandit, who claims the land being the son of Huro Pandit, for which he is paying rent to the State, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this issue was raised by the petitioner, before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and appeal bearing Bihar (Jharkhand) Privileage persons Homestead Tenancy Act appeal No. 53/2008 was filed, in which the respondent has settled the dispute by signing the document, that she is not claiming such land. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih asked the Sub-Divisional Officer -2- to submit report with regard to compromise petition filed by the parties, which was found to be forged, as respondent has denied to put her signature on such compromise, thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though counter affidavit has been filed by the State through Circle Officer, Gandey on 25.02.2020, stating therein that on the instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, under in Bihar (Jharkhand) Privileage persons Homestead Tenancy Act appeal No. 53/2008-09 vide order dated 01.08.2011, the Circle Officer, Gandey has been directed to institute a case in the concerned Police Station against the petitioner as the Basgit Parcha has been issued in favour of the private respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, A.A.G.-I has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph-13 at page-10 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has not explained, that from which documents the vendor Sk. Rohan and Sk. Taharat, Kawad Ali and Dawat Ali have acquired right, title and possession over 33 decimals of land within Khata No.157, Plot No.858 of Mouza- Ahilyapur, District- Giridih, for which the Basgit Parcha has been issued in favour of the respondent No.5. It has further been stated in paragraph-15 of counter affidavit, that upon application for issuance of Basgit Purcha filed on behalf of Sushila Devi, wife of Sri Basudeo Pandit of village -Ahilyapur, P.S.- Ahilyapur, District - Giridih, Anchal Adhikari, Gandey initiated a proceeding bearing case No.22/2007-08, passed order on 24.04.2007 and invited objection through Aam Istehar and directed Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector to enquire the matter and submit its report. Nobody filed an objection and Halka Karmchari and Circle Inspector submitted their report, that said Shushila Devi has a Kachcha house over land in question and she has been residing therein for last 15-16 years. She has only 0.85 acres of Dhan Khet and came under preview of Bihar (Jharkhand) Privileage persons Homestead Tenancy Act, Anchal Adhikari, Gandey, personally enquired the land in question also and passed order on 10.05.2007, against which the appeal was preferred under Section 21 of Bihar Privileage persons Homestead Tenancy Act before Deputy Collector, Giridih, which was recorded as Misc. Case No.53/2008-09. The plea of compromise, which has been taken by the petitioner is not accepted by the respondents, as the petitioner is a man of influence in the locality, as such, -3- the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has taken cognizance upon the report of Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih and passed order on 01.08.2011.
Upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petition has filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State on 16.03.2020, wherein it has been stated at paragraph -9 that petitioner has purchased the land in the year 1941 and if the petitioner is not owner of the land, then how the Basgit Parcha of the land of the petitioner can be given to respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted, that the stand taken by the Circle Officer, Gandey is itself contradictory, as on the one hand he has recognized the right of the petitioner by granting rent receipt brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the other hand the Circle Officer, Gandey is submitting that this land is a Government land, as such, the Circle Officer has not acted in accordance with law and thus passed such order. The same has not been explained by the State.
Learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy appearing for the respondent Nos.5&6 has submitted that he has filed counter affidavit on 08.12.2021 stating therein that respondent no.5 has less amount of land and, as such, she comes under the privileage person, as such, State has rightly granted the Baskit Parcha in her favour and the writ petitioner being a influential person, has filed a document, which has never been admitted by the respondent No.5.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I is directed to file supplementary counter affidavit through the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih with regard to the averments made, which is capsulized here, if the sale deed of the petitioner is of the year 1941and same is not recognized by Annexure-2 i.e. Rent receipt issued in favour of the petitioner, whether Deputy Commissioner, Giridih can provide the list of all the Government land situated in circle concerned, so as to establish before this Court that the land, which has been settled to respondent Nos.5 is a Government land.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
Jay/ (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)