Uma Shankar Bux Roy, aged about 42 years, s/o late Lalu Nand Keshare Bux v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, PO & PS-Chhatarpur, District
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No.19 of 2023 Uma Shankar Bux Roy, aged about 42 years, s/o late Lalu Nand Keshare Bux, r/o village Chhatarpur, PO & PS-Chhatarpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand ...…… Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, PO & PS-Chhatarpur, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. 3. The Additional Collector, Palamau at Daltonganj 4. Rajendra Kumar Singh, s/o late Babu Vijay Bahadur Singh, r/o village-Udaygarh, PO+PS-Chhatarpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. 5. Birendra Prasad Singh, s/o Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, r/o village Udaygarh, PO +PS-Chhatarpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Awadhesh Bux Roy, s/o Sri Raghunath Bux Roy, r/o village-Bagaiya, PO+PS-Chhatarpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand …… ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Amicus Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG-II 5th March 2024 --------- Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. Uma Shankar Bux Roy is aggrieved by dismissal of W.P(C) No.1256 of 2011 in absence of his counsel and that too after reflecting on the merits of the matter. 2. The writ Court observed as under: “….It appears that though the officers are mentioning in the order that there is connivance of Halka Karamchari with some private parties, but no action has been taken by the State because of the reason best known to the higher authority of the State and thus, there are litigations pending before this High Court, where the State Officers are not able to clarify the stand of the State of Jharkhand. It appears that on the basis of a document, the petitioner has claimed the land, which is of dated 21.01.1949, this Court is not aware of the fact that whether this document is suspicious document or not and whether the document has to be enquired under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar / Jharkhand Land Reforms Act, 1950 or not, but it appears that the revenue machinery has failed in the State of Jharkhand and thus, such illegal procedure are being allowed before the revenue 2 L.P.A No.19 of 2023 authority and the cases are pending since 2011 and they are not able to assist this Court properly. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand is directed to look into such matters including the present case and evolve a method atleast to protect the government land and also a basic method for mutation as envisaged under Bihar / Jharkhand Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for the same two piece of jamabandi one in the name of Rajendra Kumar Singh vide A.R. Case No. 25/1977- 78 and subsequently in favour of writ petitioner, Uma Shankar Roy Bux vide Rent Fixation Case No. 02/2008-09, which requires proper enquiry by Revenue Authority.” land, Revenue authorities have created 3. The appellant has pleaded that a piece of land measuring about 0.23 acres comprised under Khata No.75, Plot No.551 at village Bara within Chattarpur PS in the district of Palamau owned by Rajmata Jamuna Kunwar was transferred to his mother Mankekti Devi on payment of Salami on 21st January 1949. The appellant claims that after such transfer his mother came in continuous possession thereon and exercised her right, title and interest in respect thereof. According to the appellant, on account of her old age his mother desired that Jamabandi in respect of the subject land should be created in his favor and, therefore, he moved an application on 29th March 2008. This application was registered as Rent Fixation Case No.2/2008-09 and a spot verification report was submitted by the Halka Karamchari on 27th October 2008. The State of Jharkhand has pleaded in its counter- affidavit that Aam Istehar was published seeking objection against creation of Jamabandi in favor of the appellant and the Circle Officer at Chattarpur made a recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Officer for creation of Jamabandi in his name as no objection was raised from any quarter. As it would appear from the materials on record, Jamabandi was created in the name of the appellant by fixing rent through letter no.239 dated 9th June 2008. However, the grievance of the appellant is that the Additional Collector over-turned the decision of the Circle Officer vide order dated 20th September 2010 while entertaining A.R Appeal No. XV/14/2008-09 which was preferred by Rajendra Kumar 3 L.P.A No.19 of 2023 Singh and others. The writ Court however did not interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition in absence of the counsels for the parties. 4. A question therefore at once would arise whether the matter should be remitted back to the writ Court for a fresh consideration after hearing the parties. However, we have formed an opinion having regard to the nature of the order passed and the materials placed on record that no purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the writ Court. 5. We have heard Ms. Shivani Jaluka, the learned Amicus, Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant who appeared at a later stage in the present proceeding and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, the learned State counsel. 6. Ms. Shivani Jaluka, the learned Amicus has submitted that the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the statutory authority. The learned Amicus with reference to the decisions in “Shri Sohal Lal v. Union of India”1957 SCC OnLine SC 39, “Mohan Pandey & Anr. v. Usha Rani Rajgaria”(1992) 4 SCC 61 and “Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal” (2003) 6 SCC 230 to submit that the revenue authorities are not vested with the powers to decide the disputes as regards right, title and interest over the landed property and the appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the civil Court. 7. The decision of the Additional Collector in A.R Appeal No.XV/14/2008-09 is based on the fact that Jamabandi was created in favor of Shyamsundri Devi vide order dated 3rd August 1984 passed in A.R Case No.25/1977-78 who transferred the subject land through registered Power of Attorney dated 22nd February 1992 in favor of her husband Ramadhar Singh and her son Subodh Kumar Singh. Later, the subject land was transferred through sale-deed no.1835 dated 18th February 1993 in favor of Rajendra Kumar Singh. Now the controversy involved in the present case can be resolved by looking at the provisions under sub-section 2 to section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Section 14 provides that on receipt of notice under sections 4,5,6,7,8 9 and 10 or an application under 4 L.P.A No.19 of 2023 sections 11 and 12 or a report under section 13, the Circle Officer shall start a mutation proceeding after entering it in the mutation case register and shall cause such inquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. Sub-section 2 thereof provides that the Circle Officer shall issue a general notice and also give notice to the “parties concerned” to file objection within 15 days of the issuance of notice. The Circle Officer was therefore under a duty to serve a personal notice upon the parties in whose favor Jamabandi was created vide order dated 3rd August 1984 passed in A.R Case No.25/1977-78 but this procedure as it appears was not followed. The Circle Officer proceeded in the matter only on the basis of the inspection report dated 27th October 2008 and that no objection was received against Rent Fixation Case No.2/2008-09. The Additional Collector at Palamau rightly observed that the Circle Officer did not examine the revenue records and passed an order for rent fixation in the name of the appellant. 8. W.P(C) No.1256 of 2011 has therefore rightly been dismissed as the Circle Officer had passed the order in Rent Fixation Case No.2/2008-09 without complying with the requirements under sub- section 2 to section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 9. 10. L.P.A No.19 of 2023 is dismissed. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus who meticulously prepared short synopsis, list of dates and ably assisted the Court arguing this Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant. 11. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills(s). She shall be paid Rs.5500/- for each date of hearing. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Sudhir/ NAFR