Sidhinath Pandey v. Commissioner, Palamau Division, PO

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State [in both cases] : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I Mr. R. K. Sahi, AC to SC (L&C)-I [in both cases] For the Resp. Nos. 7 to 19 : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate & 22 to 25 [in L.P.A No. 23 of 2019] For the Resp. Nos. 9 to 19 : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 21(a) to (f): Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate [in L.P.A No. 39 of 2019] [in L.P.A No. 23 of 2019] --------

O R D E R 31st January 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. W.P.(C) No. 4088 of 2005 challenging the order dated 25th May 2005 passed in Revision Case No. 40 of 1995 and W.P.(C) No. 4254 of 2005 against the order dated 25th May 2005 passed in Survey Appeal No. 143 of 2000 were filed by Shidhinath Pandey and Dharamdeo Pandey both sons of late Samol Pandey. Both the writ petitions were taken up together for hearing and have been disposed of by a common order dated 22nd October 2018 with the following observations : “10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioners as well as the private respondents herein are claiming right, title, interest and possession over the property involved in these cases. Further, 4 L.P.A No. 23 of 2019 L.P.A No. 39 of 2019 the State is also claiming title over the property and the specific case of the respondent-State is that neither the petitioners nor the private respondents are the title holder and the property had vested in the State.

11. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this Court further finds that serious dispute in connection with right, title, interest and possession of the property is involved in these cases and such disputed question of title and possession cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court is of the considered view that no direction could have been issued by the Commissioner in the impugned orders being order dated 25.05.2005, directing the Deputy Commissioner to evict the petitioners or the private respondents from the property involved in these cases by suo moto declaring the property as government land in the proceedings which are involved in these cases. 12. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set-aside the portion of the impugned orders dated 25.05.2005 in both the writ petitions respectively to the extent the Commissioner (Respondent no.2) has issued direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the property involved in these cases.

However, it will be open to the respondent-State to proceed in connection with the property by instituting appropriate proceeding in accordance with law and it will further be open to the petitioners or the respondents to get their right, title, interest and possession declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction.”

The appellants have challenged that part of the direction as contained in paragraph no. 12 of the order dated 22nd October 2018 by which the writ Court has indicated that the appellants or the respondents may get their right, title, interest and possession declared through a competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the 6th round of litigation pertaining to the lands comprised under Khewat Nos. 111/1, 111/2 and 115/2 which were acquired by the parents of the appellants through a sale deed dated 17th/18th September 1943 the writ Court should have concluded the issue by affirming the rights of the appellants over the aforesaid piece of land and not to relegate them to the proceeding of a Civil Court.

With reference to the orders passed by the revenue authorities in S.M Case Nos. 23 and 24 of 1971-72 by which rent was determined by the Circle Officer for the aforesaid lands and rent receipts were issued, Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the subsequent 5 L.P.A No. 23 of 2019 L.P.A No. 39 of 2019 litigations started at the instance of Dhanesh Sao, Jatan Sao, Sunder Mahto, Rattu Mahto and several others which all have lastly concluded in favor of the appellants. It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid direction by the writ Court in the order dated 22nd October 2018 is not in consonance with law and is liable to be set-aside.

Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, the learned SC (L&C)-I refers to the judgments in “Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.” (2007) 6 SCC 186, “Ajit Kaur alias Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors.” (2019) 13 SCC 70 and “Sawarni (SMT.) v. Inder Kaur (SMT.) & Ors.” (1996) 6 SCC 223, to submit that the writ Court has adopted the well-settled norms for exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In “Suraj Bhan” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9. ... It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition.”

In “Ajit Kaur” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “15. It is a settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. ……..”

A writ petition concerning any issue pertaining to declaration of right, title and interest in land is generally not maintainable. The reason is quite simple that any adjudication of right, title and interest of a person in the land would require evidence oral as well as documentary and, therefore, only after a full-fledged trial where the parties would have sufficient opportunity to lead evidence to prove a fact any determination as 6 L.P.A No. 23 of 2019 L.P.A No. 39 of 2019 regards right, title and interest in land can be made. While so, a writ Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be divested of its powers to adjudicate upon the rival claims of right, title and interest in the land [refer, “Dwarka Prasad Agrawal v. B.D. Agrawal” (2003) 6 SCC 230]. This is also well accepted in law that the proceedings before the revenue authorities are summary in nature and any finding recorded by a revenue authority shall not confer a title as regards land on any person. That seems to be the reason bearing in the minds of the writ Court that the aforesaid observation has been incorporated in paragraph no. 12 of the order dated 22nd October 2018, while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 4088 of 2005 and W.P.(C) No. 4254 of 2005.

After going through the records of the case, we find that litigation concerning right, title and interest over a part of the lands comprised under Khewat Nos. 111/1, 111/2 and 115/2 within Plot Nos. 2184 and 1769 of village-Pandu, Tola Sikia which the appellants have claimed were purchased by their parents through a sale deed dated 17th/18th September 1943 has been raging since 1972, when S.M Case No. 23/24 of 1971-72 was initiated and rent was determined in favor of appellants. Being aggrieved of that, Dhanesh Sao and others filed Appeal Nos. XV/38 and XV/39 of 1972-73 which were remitted back to the Circle Officer for re-enquiry who affirmed the aforesaid order of S.M Case and forwarded the same to the L.R.D.C. After approval, the L.R.D.C. has forwarded the same to the S.D.O, Palamau with confirmation of determination of rent in favor of the appellants. Thereafter, that was forwarded to the Additional Collector who also affirmed the said decision vide order dated 7th February 1978.

Now, Jatan Sao and others filed Revenue Appeal No. 100 of 1978 which was dismissed vide order dated 25th September 1978. They again filed Misc. Case No. 180/1982-83 7 L.P.A No. 23 of 2019 L.P.A No. 39 of 2019 demanding reopening of S.M Case No. 23/24 of 1971-72 which was rejected vide order dated 14th July 1986 on the ground of jurisdiction. The said order was challenged in Revenue Appeal No. 423/86 which was also rejected by the Commissioner. It seems that they have also initiated a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The controversy over the aforementioned piece of land continued and another set of claimants came in the picture and challenged the order dated 22nd March 1972 passed in S.M Case No. 23/24 of 1971-72. The Additional Collector, Palamau who dealt with such application filed by Sunder Mahto rejected his application dated 4th September 1972 with an observation to approach the Civil Court. Now, Prabhu Mahto, Rattu Mahto, Asarfi Mahto and Mohar Mahto, the private respondents, entered the fray and got their name mutated vide Mutation Case Nos. 221 and 222 of 1989-90 by an order dated 13 th July 1989. The appellants claiming that the aforesaid order dated 13th July 1989 was an ex parte order made on the basis of a forged sale deed, filed Appeal Nos. 22 and 23 of 1990-91 for setting-aside the said order. It appears that at the same time during the revisional survey an entry was made in the revenue records in the name of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” with respect to the aforesaid piece of land and the proceedings continued before the revisional authority.

These are the orders passed in Revision Case No. 40 of 1995 and Survey Appeal No. 143 of 2000 which, as noticed above, were challenged by the appellants in the two writ petitions.

In our opinion, the chequered history of litigation itself is a reason why the appellants should approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to get the cloud cleared with respect to their right, title and interest over the aforementioned piece of land. This is necessary also in the public interest so that 8 L.P.A No. 23 of 2019 L.P.A No. 39 of 2019 there is a final determination by concluding the litigation between the parties.

For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these Letters Patent Appeals, L.P.A No. 23 of 2019 and L.P.A No. 39 of 2019 are dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 31st January 2023 Amit/N.A.F.R (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)