1. Kajal Mukherjee, wife of Nilmani Mukherjee, aged about 42 years 2. Pallavi Biswas v. 1. State of Jharkhand , through Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue, Government of
Case Details
1 W.P. (C). No. 949 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C ) No. 949 of 2018 1. Kajal Mukherjee, wife of Nilmani Mukherjee, aged about 42 years 2. Pallavi Biswas, wife of Sri Srikant Mukherjee, aged about 31 years, 3. Srikant Mukherjee, son of late Dilip Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 36 years, All residents of Malviya Marg, Boddom Bazar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Hazaribag .......... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand , through Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi 2. The Deputy commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. , P.S.- & Dist.- Hazaribag 3. The Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. and District- Hazaribag ........... Respondents For the Petitioner : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta , Adv. Ms. Debolina Sen Hirani, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG II P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the memo no. 50/K.M. dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure 3) issued by the respondent no. 3, by which, the petitioners have been restrained from raising construction over the land, mentioned therein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the writ petitioners is that the land bearing Khata no. 106, plot no. 125 2 W.P. (C). No. 949 of 2018 to 130, of village Hazari, Thana No. – 141, Dist.- Hazaribag measuring an area of 99 decimals, was permanently settled with Most. Dhakhani Kueri, by a registered Doami Patta deed dated 08.06.1869. The settlement was for non-agricultural purposes and chaparbandi (household) rent was also fixed vide the said registered deed of permanent settlement. The settlee namely Most. Dhakhani Kueri, with her family came in possession over the said land and permanently settled with her family and constructed structures over the same. In 1911-12, cadastral survey was conducted and finally published and said plots were recorded in the name of the said Most. Dhakhani Kueri and under Column No. 14 of the Record of Rights, it was specifically mentioned that Most. Dhakhani Kueri acquired the aforesaid land through registered deed dated 08.06.1869 and the chapparbandi rent for the land was three rupees seven annas. On operation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the legal heirs and representatives of Smt. Dhakhaini Kueri, were found be in possession. Accordingly, in tenant's ledger (Register-II) Most. Dhakhani Kueri, mother of Bisheshwar Mukherjee was shown as raiyat and fair and equitable rent was
Decision
fixed. It is claimed by the writ petitioner that the land which is the subject matter of ‘annexure 3’ of this writ petition, hereinafter, referred to as ‘case land’ is a raiyati and not as Khasmahal or any other Government Land and there is absolutely no material to suggest that the case land was acquired by the government in any of the modes proved therefor, in Rule 2 of The Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953. The case land undisputedly does not find place in the list of The Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953 maintained under Rule 78 of The Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953 hereinafter referred to as ‘Khasmahal Manual’. In a litigation, in respect of a adjoining land of the ‘case land’, the High court in F.A. No. 293 of 1989 (R), has held that by virtue of Doami Patta, absolute raiyati interest was created in favour of the settlees of the adjacent land and the said findings have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme 3 W.P. (C). No. 949 of 2018 Court of India also. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a number of inter se sale and transfer of the ‘case land’ and the transferees whereof came in exclusive possession of the respective lands, purchased by them. The construction was carried out, only after the multi-storied residential buildings, to be erected on more or less 14.67 decimals of land, was sanctioned by the competent authority by the Khasmahal Officers, without having any jurisdiction to restrain the petitioners, from raising construction over their own property, first issued a notice and after appearance of the petitioners, before the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 verbally directed the petitioners, to stop the construction work and ultimately, vide Annexure 3 , passed an order in writing. It is next submitted that neither the land in question is Khasmahal land, nor the Khasmahal Officer, has been vested with the power to stop any construction hence, the order passed by Khasmahal Officer, the copy of which, has been kept as Annexure 3, was beyond the competence of the Khasmahal Officer to issue such order, hence, the same being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the Register maintained under Rule 78, the case land does not find place but the respondent no. 2- the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, found the ‘case land’ to be a Khasmahal land and not a Raiyati land. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, that there is no provision of permanent settlement of Khasmahal land, hence, this writ petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 5. On being asked by the Court, as to under which provision of law, the respondent no. 3 has directed the petitioners, to stop the construction work, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that there is no such provision of law, which vests any power upon the Khasmahal Officer, to stop any construction activity over any land. 4 W.P. (C). No. 949 of 2018 6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that in revenue records including the Register II, the name of the Dhakhani Kueri is existing and the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners, paid the land revenue up to the year, 2015 and there is no material in the record to suggest that the name of Dhakhani Kueri or her legal representative have been struck out from the revenue record and the undisputed fact remains that the Khasmahal Officer, has not been vested with any power to stop any construction work and the undisputed facts also remains that the ‘case land’ is not appearing in the list to be maintained under Rule 78 of The Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953 and there is no material in the record to suggest that in which of the modes , as mentioned in Rule 2 of The Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953, which reads as under :- 2. Government Estates-How acquired-Estates may be acquired by Government in the following ways- (1) Purchase at revenue sale (Section 58 of Act XI of 1859). (2) Purchase by private contract (3) Escheat in default of legal heirs (4) Forfeiture to Government for certain offences against the State. (5) Resumption of island chars (Regulation XI of 1825). (6) Acquisition for public purposes. (7) Accretion to estates, the property of Government. (8) Resumption of lands hitherto held by Zamindars for the performance of police duties when they are relieved of those duties. The case land has been acquired to become a government estate. 7. Under such circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 15.02.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3, the copy of which is kept at annexure 3 of the writ petition, is an order 5 W.P. (C). No. 949 of 2018 passed without jurisdiction and a perverse one as well, hence, the same is not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, order dated 15.02.2018, the copy of which is kept at annexure 3 of the writ petition is quashed and set aside. 9. In view of disposal of this writ petition, all the interlocutory applications, stand disposed of, being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 8th February, 2024 Smita /AFR