The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project v. Building, P.O. & P.S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6730 of 2012 TEJU RAM THAKUR, son of Late Ram Kumar Hazam, resident of Radha Nagar, P.O.- Radha Nagar, P.S.- Marafari, District- Bokaro. … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project Versus Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O.- Bokaro, P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 3. Additional Collector, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 4. District Fishery Officer, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 5. Anchal Adhikari, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY … … Respondents --- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate --- 10/16.07.2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder “For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) for quashing the decision dated 04.10.2010, communicated vide Memo No: 1663 dated 03.12.2010 the respondent No.3 illegally declined to have any role in respect of the claims made by the Petitioner; AND for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Order/direction commanding upon the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the land of Plot Nos. 764 and 765 under Khata No: 76 in Mouza- Chainpur, P.S.- Jaridih, Bokaro; And/or such for Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioners.” issuance of any 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph
Decision
5 of the writ petition and submits that the plot No. 764 and 765 under Khata No: 76 in Mouza Chainpur originally belonged to the landlords 1 of Ramgarh, who by Hukumnana settled the same to the father of the Petitioner through fard Amin report issued in the year 1942. The father of the Petitioner came in peaceful possession over the said land by regularly paying rent to the ex-landlord and even after vesting to the State Government. 4. The learned counsel submits that the District Fishery Officer, Bokaro had taken a decision to settle the tank on the aforesaid property and being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2972 of 2004 and vide order dated 25.06.2004 it was observed that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the District Fishery Officer, Bokaro for settlement of the tank he was at liberty to file representation before him. It was also directed that the District Fishery Officer shall consider the representation and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation was filed before the District Fishery Officer to get an inspection which is apparent from letter contained in Annexure-3 dated 12.10.2004 issued by the Circle Officer. The learned counsel submits that it has been recorded in the said letter that the property is running in the name of the father of the petitioner and they are in possession of the property and it was also stated that nothing has been mentioned as to how many times the tank was settled. The learned counsel refers to Annexure-4 which is again a report of the Circle Officer dated 09.10.2007 and submits that this report is also in favour of the petitioner. However, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2010, the Respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that a direction was issued to the District Fishery Officer to pass an order. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that pursuant to order passed by this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed which is dated 22.03.2023 and as per Annexure-D therein, the concerned District Fishery Officer had observed that the petitioner did not submit 2 any evidence and rejected the representation and further observed that the petitioner may approach the Revenue Department. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that pursuant to order passed by this Court the petitioner had approached the District Fishery Officer who in turn asked the petitioner to approach the Revenue Department and the Revenue Department refused to pass any order by stating that it was the District Fishery Officer who was supposed to pass appropriate order pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 8. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been made to run from one authority to another, although there are repeated reports of the Circle Officer in his favour. He submits that the petitioner has been deprived of using the tank. The learned counsel submits that there are repeated reports that the petitioner is in possession of the property involved in this case and the rent was paid up till 1994-95. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has not placed on record any Hukumnana or rent receipt or any supporting documents with regard to his claim. He further submits that in order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner may have to get the property mutated in his favour and once appropriate order is passed by the Circle Officer regarding mutation then only the entire right, title, interest, possession etc. would become clear. He submits that since the basic documents have not been placed on record, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner be granted. 10. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the land is recorded as Gair Abad Malik Khata in the survey settlement and after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the property has been vested with the State and therefore the State has title over the property. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that although the petitioner is claiming right, title, interest and possession over the property and the possession of the petitioner 3 stands confirmed by the report of the Circle Officer. Therefore, if the State is claiming any title, it is for the State to go and get the title declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. The learned has also submitted that the reports are in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner would claim mutation only by way of succession. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner was initially aggrieved with the settlement of the tank in connection with the property involved in the present case and then the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2972 of 2004. The order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2972 of 2004 on 25.06.2004 is quoted as under: “ the writ application. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and peruse In absence of categorical statement no positive order can be passed in this case. However if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the District Fishery Officer, Bokaro for settlement of the tank he is at liberty to file representation before him. Needless to say that the District Fishery Officer shall consider the representation and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.” 13. The petitioner thereafter approached the District Fishery Officer by filing a representation and pursuant to such representation the District Fishery Officer got some report from the Circle Officer which is contained in Annexure–3 of the writ petition. From perusal of the report, it appears that the petitioner is in possession of the property however, the said authority ultimately did not pass any order in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any document or evidence in support of his claim and observed that the petitioner may approach the Revenue Department by filing an application. 14. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Revenue Department and the Revenue Department also conducted an inspection through the Circle Officer and again the Circle Officer reported that the property is in possession of the petitioner. However, the Revenue Authority also declined to pass any order by observing that pursuant to order passed 4 in W.P.(C) 2972 of 2004 the reasoned order was required to be passed by the District Fishery Officer. 15. This Court finds that the petitioner has been made to run from one authority to another in connection with his grievance. However, it appears that as per the case of the petitioner himself, the mutation was in favour of the father of the petitioner till 1994-95 and further mutation has not been done, so far as the petitioner is concerned. The rent receipts etc. and other documents in support of the claim of the petitioner has not been placed on record in the writ petition. However, this Court is of the considered view that the entire situation would become clear if the petitioner applies mutation in his favour. There is rival claim of the State that the property belongs to State by virtue of vesting under Bihar Land Reforms Act. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the Respondent No. 5 for the purposes of mutation and thereafter the parties may proceed in accordance with law. 17. It is observed that this Court has not recorded any finding with regard to right, title, interest and possession of the either party. 18. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been fighting for his rights for quite some time, if an application for mutation is filed before the concerned Circle Officer, the same be taken up and decided as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of filing of such application. 19. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Rakesh (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5