The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4028 of 2005 1. Soumen Dutta 2(i) Suparna Dutta 2 (ii) Tanmay Krishna Dutta …. ….. Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. Additional Collector, Ranchi 5. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi 6. Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi …. …. --------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C (L&C)-I -------- 09/ Dated 26.07.2023 Heard the parties. Respondents The petitioners have filed this writ application with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 10.06.1998, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No.10 of 1993-94, Annexure-5 to the writ application, by which, the respondent No.5 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi has illegally cancelled the long standing jamabandi in the name of the mother of the petitioners after expiry of more than 50 years with respect to the land measuring 9.15 acres belonging to R.S. Plot No.937 of Khata No.101 at village-Tau, P.S.-Bundu, District-Ranchi and for quashing of the order dated 31.07.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 87R15 of 1998-99 and for quashing of the order dated 27.04.2005 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Revision No.137/1999, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners in a cryptic manner. The case of the petitioners is that ex-intermediary namely Khudi Ram Dutta, Chhunu Lal Dutta and Gouri Bala Dutta, who had intermediary rights over the said land, settled their lands to their predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners namely Ratan Chandra Nayak and also started realizing rents and issued rent receipts. It is the further case of these writ petitioners that after the abolition of Jamindari, their names were entered into the revenue records and the State Government started realizing rents from them and also 2 issued rent receipts. After abolition of Jamindari, the name of Ratan Chandra Nayak was entered into the revenue records and the State Government has also issued rent receipt. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the aforesaid land from Ratan Chandra Nayak by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.02.1963 and their names were also entered into the revenue records and the State Government realized rents from them and issued rent receipts.
Decision
The title of the writ petitioners came under cloud when Miscellaneous Case No.10/1993-94 was initiated in the Court of learned S.D.M, Khunti, Ranchi in a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, later, which was initiated at the instance of Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi. Learned S.D.M., Khunti vide order dated 10.06.1998 cancelled the jamabandi of the petitioners with regard to the aforesaid land. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed. The revision filed by them against the order of dismissal before the Commissioner of South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi was also dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that a parallel proceeding was conducted in the Court of Additional Collector, Ranchi vide Case No.03/1995-96, in which, both the State Government and the present petitioners were the parties. The Additional Collector came to a finding that the petitioners cannot be evicted unless their jamabandi was canceled by a competent court. The Additional Collector had given this finding on the basis of the fact that there was long standing Jamabandi in the name of the petitioners and the rent receipts were issued periodically to the petitioners by the Revenue Officers. Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there is no provision under Section 4(h) of the Jharkhand Land Reforms Act, 1950 or under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 for cancellation of Jamabandi. It was further submitted that the learned S.D.M was not empowered to cancel the long standing Jamabandi of the petitioners. It was finally submitted that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Jharkhand Land Reforms Act, 1950 cannot be initiated for cancellation of jamabandi of the land which was settled prior to 01.01.1946. 3 Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Kalut Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1980) BBCJ 373 and the decision passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.786/2018 which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.A (C) No.8108/2021, where it was held as follows : “It is further settled position of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be annulled. Herein it is admitted fact that Jamabandi can be created under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. We have gone across the provisions thereof, as contained in the Act, 1973 and have found that no provision confer upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi. The question would be that in absence of any power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer of this question would be in negative as statute confers power upon the authority and the authority can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon it under the statutory power and if any decision is taken in absence of any provision the same would be said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be without jurisdiction. It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be canceled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533.” Specific stand has been taken by the respondents that the rent receipts, in question, by virtue of which, the petitioners are claiming that they have got long standing jamabandi were fictitious and fabricated as the circle office was non-existent at the time when the rent receipt was issued. One of the rent receipts of 1957 was forged and fictitious as Circle Office did not exist in Bundu. On this point, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Elizabeth Jacob Vs. District Collector, Idukki and Ors., reported in (2008) 15 SCC 166. “Having held so, the Division Bench proceeded to allow the appeal on the unsupported surmises and inferences. One surmise was that it was generally known that the Revenue Authorities used to assign lands by ignoring the provisions of protective enactments and the public trust doctrine. The second surmise was that the past experience in the State showed a possibility that the land assigned in 1981 and 1984 was forest land and the Revenue Authorities colluded with the assignees in assigning the land. The third was that therefore the appellant should approach the civil court and seek a declaration that the land purchased by her was not forest land and establish her title and then obtain possession. Such a 4 direction on surmises along was unwarranted. A doubt or surmise is not proof of a fact. A claim that land may be forest land is not proof that it is forest land. A suspicion that there might have been collusion and fraud is not proof of collusion and fraud. At all events, who should establish fraud and collusion? Is it for the State which alleged fraud and collusion by someone in 1981 and 1984 to establish those facts? Or is it for the bonafide purchaser from the State to establish that there was no fraud or collusion in respect of the property put up by the Stae for sale? The onus is clearly on the State. We are therefore of the view that the Division Bench committed a jurisdictional error in interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge.” It is undisputed fact that the petitioners have long standing jamabandi in their names since after vesting of zamindari. It is also undisputed fact that the rent receipts were issued to them by the State Government and it is also undisputed fact that the lands, in question, were settled to their predecessors-in-interest by zamindar who was having ex-intermediary right prior to 01.01.1946. These facts have not been challenged by the State Government. In view of the aforesaid facts, the only remedy open to the State is to file a suit before the competent Civil Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration that the Jamabandi of the petitioners was obtained by fraudulent means and they had not perfected in their right, title and interest over the aforesaid land, in question, by virtue of settlement by ex-landlord or otherwise. In view of the aforesaid facts, the operation of the order dated 10.06.1998 passed by the S.D.M, Khunti, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No.10/1993-94 and the consequential appellate orders and the revisional orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Commissioner, South Chotonagpur, Ranchi is set aside. This writ application is accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. B.S.-Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)