Jharkhand High Court
Surajdeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 18 April, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 7595 of 2012
........
Surajdeo Singh .... ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
For the Respondents/State : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, G.P.-II. For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate.
........
27/18.04.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner - Surajdeo Singh, S/o Late Manglu Singh has preferred the instant writ petition on 19.12.2012 for issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.10.2012, passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 50 R 15 of 2009-10, whereby the miscellaneous petition preferred by private- respondent no.4 (Chintamani Trust through its Chairman, Bara Lal Govind Nath Shahdeo) has been allowed and the Demand opened in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled, which is in gross violation of the provisions of the well settled principle of law, as such, the same is also in contravention of the order dated 04.02.2008 passed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007.
Learned counsel, Mr. Atul Kumar assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary has submitted, that father of the petitioner, Manglu Singh has acquired a land measuring an area of 7 acres, appertaining to Plot No.496, Khata No.383, Khewat No.2, Village- Pundag, Thana No.228 at Ranchi, on the basis of hukumnama dated 08.01.1940 granted by ex-landlord namely, Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo and a raiyati settlement was made for an area of 7 acres on the acceptance of Salami and thereafter the rent was fixed, accordingly. The ex-landlord also granted rent receipt to the father of the petitioner, namely, Manglu Singh. The copy of hukumnama along with the rent receipt, granted by the ex-landlord have been brought on record as Annexure-1 Series.
-2-Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that after vesting of the intermediary interest into the State of Bihar, the right of the settlee was duly accepted by the State and accordingly vide order in Compensation Case No. 5 of 1952-53 passed by the court of Additional Collector, Gumla, father of the petitioner, Manglu Singh was recognized as Raiyat of the settled land, on the basis of the Hukumnama dated 08.01.1940. Thereafter, the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand issued rent receipts in favour of Manglu Singh, which have been brought on record as Annexure-2 series.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the State of Jharkhand has stopped taking rent from Manglu Singh and his heir, thus, force the petitioner to move before this Court in writ jurisdiction vide W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007, which was disposed of in terms of order dated 04.02.2008, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that :-
"On perusal of extract of Compensation Case No. 5 of 1952-53, contained in Annexure-3, I find that the petitioner's name has been mentioned as raiyat in respect of an area of 7 acres of Plot No.496 appertaining to Khata no.383 with the endorsement of the date of settlement as 8th January, 1940. The petitioner has also produced rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord. It is evident from the certified copy of Register-II and the tenants' ledger that the petitioner's father's name has been recorded in the revenue register and rent receipts were also granted by the State.
In view of the above, the respondents cannot arbitrarily refuse to accept rent and grant rent receipts, until the said jamabandi is held illegal or is cancelled by any Competent Court / authority by following the procedure established by law. The respondents are, thus, directed to accept rent in respect of the petitioner's land as per the entry in Register- II whenever the same is paid at the prescribed rate and issue rent receipt thereof until any contrary order is passed by any competent court or authority."-3-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that after passing of the order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007, the Deputy Collector (Legal Cell), Ranchi directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi and Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi for compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide his letter dated 27.02.2008 and 29.02.2008, which have been brought on record as Annexure-4 series. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi has directed the concerned Revenue Clerk to issue rent receipt after accepting the rent vide his Letter dated 15.03.2008, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that Manglu Singh died leaving behind his son, the writ petitioner, Surajdeo Singh, as such, petitioner is in the peaceful possession over the land and is accordingly, paying rent to the State of Jharkhand in the name of Original Raiyat namely, Manglu Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that in the meantime, private-respondent no.4 (Chintamani Trust through its Chairman, Bara Lal Govind Nath Shahdeo) preferred a miscellaneous case before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of demand, which has been opened in the name of opposite party no.2, namely, Surajdeo Singh (Petitioner), which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.50 R 15 of 2009-10. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 / petitioner has appeared and filed his objection-cum- written argument on 18.08.2010 in Misc. Case No. 50 R 15 of 2009-10 and after hearing the parties, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has cancelled the Jamabandi of opposite party no. 2 / petitioner in terms of order dated 22.10.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.50 R 15 of 2009-10. Thus, petitioner came before this Hon'ble Court for illegal act done by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as this issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007. The private-respondent no.4 (Chintamani Trust through its Chairman, Bara Lal Govind Nath Shahdeo) could have preferred the -4- LPA against the said order, as the person, though not party to the litigation, but prejudiced by the judgment passed by the Court can prefer an appeal, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Sardari Lal and Others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 601 and Menka Gupta v. Umashree Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1671.
Para-13 of the judgment passed in the case of Raj Kumar (Supra) may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
13. The appellant cannot dispute that the decree though passed against Respondents 2 and 3 could be executed even against Respondent 4, he being a lis pendens transferee though not having been joined in the suit as a party. Such a person can prefer an appeal being a person aggrieved. Clearly, the person who is liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree or can file an appeal against in decree, though not a party to the suit or decree, does have locus standi to move an application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against the person in whose shoes he has stepped in. In the expression employed in Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC that "in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply ... for an order to set it aside", the word "he" cannot be construed with such rigidity and so restrictively as to exclude the person, who has stepped into the shoes of the defendant, from moving an application for setting aside the ex parte decree especially in the presence of Section 146 CPC.
Para- 10 to 13 of the judgment passed in the case of Menka Gupta (Supra) may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
10. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Counsel on the other hand relied upon the decision of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal (2004) 2 SCC 601where an application filed by a transferee pendente lite under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was allowed. The plea that such a transferee could not be allowed to maintain the application under Order IX Rule 13 was expressly rejected. The following observations in paras 8 and 9 are noteworthy:
"8. A lis pendens transferee from the defendant, though not arrayed as a party in the suit, is still a person claiming under the defendant. The same principle of -5- law is recognized in a different perspective by Rule 16 of Order 21 CPC which speaks of transfer or assignment inter vivos or by operation of law made by the plaintiff decree-holder. The transferee may apply for execution of the decree of the court which passed it and the decree will be available for execution in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by the decree-holder. It is interesting to note that a provision like Section 146 CPC was not to be found in the preceding Code and was for the first time incorporated in CPC of 1908. In Order 21 Rule 16 also an explanation was inserted through amendment made by Act 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 1-2-1977, whereby the operation of Section 146 CPC was allowed to prevail independent of Order 21 Rule 16 CPC.
9. A decree passed against the defendant is available for execution against the transferee or assignee of the defendant judgment-debtor and it does not make any difference whether such transfer or assignment has taken place after the passing of the decree or before the passing of the decree without notice or leave of the court."
11. The scope of submissions available to an obstructionist under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC would be restricted to consider whether he could validly or lawfully obstruct the execution of the decree. On the other hand for a defendant who had moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the scope of the challenge would be to consider whether there was sufficient cause which prevented him from appearing when the proceedings were taken up or whether there was serious infirmity in service of the summons upon him. The scope of challenge and available submissions at these two stages are thus distinct and different and as such the observations of this Court in Usha Sinha(2008) 7 SCC 144 would not strictly govern and restrict the scope of an application on behalf of a transferee pendente lite at the stage of Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.
12. The decision in Usha Sinha (2008) 7 SCC 144 considered the matter from the stand point of scope of Order 21 Rule 102 and other related rules. On the other hand, the -6- matter directly on the point is the decision of this Court in Raj Kumar which was the case of transferee pendente lite filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. In that context the attack on the ground of locus standi of such applicant was rejected in express terms.
13. The view taken by the High Court in the instant case is consistent with the law laid down in the case of Raj Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 601.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the exercise of power by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is contrary to the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court. Several writ petitions have been filed before this Court, some of them have been allowed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches of this Court and some of them by this Court and some of the writ petitions have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but even then, such orders are being passed by the Deputy Commissioner, putting the citizen of India in such a situation where they have to knock the door of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed list of cases, relating to Khata No. 383 of Mouza - Pundag, which are as follows:-
Sl. No. Case No. Party Name 1 W.P.(C)-6802/2011 Shubhan Ansari & Ors Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors 2 W.P.(C)-644/2016 Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors 3 W.P.(C)-2783/2017 Anpurna Devi And Another Versus Land Reforms And Revenue Department 4 W.P.(C)-3581/2017 Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo Versus Land Reforms And Revenue Department -7- 5 W.P.(C)-1119/2006 Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari Versus State of Jharkhand and Others State of Jharkhand and Ors. L.P.A-474/2006 Versus Md. Muslim Ansari Special Leave Appeal-(C) State of Jharkhand No-8279/2009 Versus Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari 6 W.P.(C)-3651/2015 M/s India Estates Developments Limited through one of the Directors namely, Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs THE State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and Others 7 W.P.(C)-6192/2015 M S India Estate Development Ltd Through Its Director Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs The State Of Jharkhand 8 W.P.(C)-4513/2016 Jahangir Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr 9 W.P.(C)-2585/2015 Abbas Ansari Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 10 W.P.(C)-3173/2020 Rashmi Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand 11 W.P.(C)-283/2011 Smt. Annapurna Devi Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. L.P.A/244/2012 State of Jharkhand Vs Smt. Annapurna Devi and Others 12 W.P.(C)-4694/2011 Kalyani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 13 W.P.(C)-2166/2011 Lal Yashwant Nath Shahdeo Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 14 W.P.(C)-6802/2011 Shuband Ansari and Others Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 15 W.P.(C)-1207/2012 Mrigendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 16 W.P.(C)-2830/2012 Sidheshwar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and Others -8- 17 W.P.(C)-3230/2012 Usha Kiran Vs State of Jharkhand and Others 18 W.P.(C)-3865/2012 Smt. Manjula Sinha Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 19 W.P.(C)-6255/2012 Madhu Mahto Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors 20 W.P.(C)-8001/2012 Ram Charitar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 21 W.P.(C)-8019/2012 Malti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Ranchi 22 W.P.(C)-8002/2012 Dhananjay Kumar and Another Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 23 W.P.(C)-1241/2013 Lal Ambika Nath Shahdeo. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 24 W.P.(C)-1245/2013 Lal Ambika Nath Shahdeo. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 25 W.P.(C)-8045/2012 Rajesh Pathak Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors 26 W.P.(C)-3039/2013 Madhu Ram Sahu and Others Vs The State Of Jharkhand 27 W.P.(C)-7532/2011 Ratna Prabha Sahdeo Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 28 W.P.(C)-4324/2013 Jahangir Alam Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 29 W.P.(C)-7006/2013 Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand L.P.A/695/2015 Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 30 W.P.(C)-6994/2013 Kedarnath Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others L.P.A/696/2015 Kedarnath Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 31 W.P.(C)-2572/2014 Sailesh Kumar Thakur and Others Vs The State of Jharkhand -9- 32 W.P.(C)-3828/2014 Kuwar Ram Kashyap Vs The State of Jharkhand & Others 33 W.P.(C)-4222/2014 Umesh Nath Tiwary Vs The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others 34 W.P.(C)-3123/2014 Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand 35 W.P.(C)-3651/2015 M/s India Estates Developments Limited through one of the Directors namely, Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others 36 W.P.(C)-2334/2015 Munshi Ram Kashyap Vs The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others 37 W.P. (C) - 4895/2007 Smt. Kanak Kumari Devi and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and Others LPA - 244/2012 State of Jharkhand Vs. Annapurna Devi & Others 38 W.P. (C) - 1200/2012 1.Yogendra Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others 39 W.P. (C) -1262/2010 Dharmesh Singh Vs. with State of Jharkhand and others W.P.(C) - 7967/2012 Lalita Devi Vs. with State of Jharkhand and others Fulwati Devi W.P.(C) - 7972/2012 Vs. State of Jharkhand and others 40 W.P. (C) - 5365/2014 Md. Julfan Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 41 W.P. (C) No. 3599 of 2012 Islam Ansari vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 42 W.P. (C) No. 3612 of 2012 Shyam Bihari Nayak vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 43 W.P. (C) No. 3878 of 2012 Afjal Hussain vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. -10-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted, that the impugned order is bad in law, as such, the same may be set aside, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as Revenue Authority, State of Jharkhand not to disturb with the possession of the petitioner or his successor-in-interest without having a decree from competent court of law, as such, the writ petitioner may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar no.3, G.P.-II has submitted, that such orders are being passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in the year, 2008 as because the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in terms of Memo No. 1203 / Confidential dated 12.07.2004 has passed an order that registration of any land of Khata No. 383 is completely prohibited, as such, the subsequent Deputy Commissioners have passed such orders without any malice as the order contained in Memo No.1203/Confidential dated 12.07.2004 has been passed by the authority of co-jurisdiction i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad has submitted, that fraud vitiates solemn proceeding to any order obtained by fraud is nullity in the eyes of law and can be set aside even by the lowest court.
This Court ask learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad that after 43 cases have been allowed by the High Court and some of them have been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent no. 4 has not taken any legal remedy available under law.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has further submitted, that Chintamani Trust is entity under the Chairmanship of Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, who has executed sada hukumnama on 08.01.1940.
This petitioner has not established his locus that he is the Chairman of the Trust and the act of the previous Chairman was bad in law.
This petitioner ought to have move before the competent court of law for declaration of his title or for declaration of sada -11- hukumnama to be a document, which is not only forged and fabricated but not binding upon Chintamani Trust.
Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as person aggrieved of an order after having knowledge may move before the court of appeal, but the respondent no.4 has not taken any such steps in this matter and coming before this Court to object the order, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to Khata No.383 and the list of the cases have already been recorded in the above paragraphs, as such, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 cannot be allowed to sustain unless and until there is declaration by competent court of law.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2008, passed in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi should not have entertained such application of respondent no. 4, Chintamani Trust, which has been registered as Miscellaneous Case No.50 R 15 of 2009-10. If Chintamani Trust has any objection with regard to petitioner's title, Chintamani Trust is free to file suit before the competent court of law.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 22.10.2012, passed in Miscellaneous Case No.50 R 15 of 2009-10 is hereby quashed and set aside, as a large number of cases have already been decided with regard to transfer of land by Chintamani Trust.
The Revenue Authority, State of Jharkhand is directed to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner or his successor-in-interest till any order from competent court of civil jurisdiction is passed holding decree in favour of Chintamani Trust.
The instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Rohit - Sunil/-