The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Barhi, having its office at v. Barhi, P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 165 of 2024 Amrit Mahto, aged about 76 years, Son of Late Gango Mahto, Resident of Village-Chuglamo, P.O.-Chuglamo, P.S.-Barkatha, --- --- Respondent/Appellant District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Barhi, having its office at Versus Barhi, P.O. + P.S. – Barhi, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 3. The Circle Officer, Barkatha, P.O. + P.S. -Barkatha, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 4. Surendra Prasad Choudhary, Son of Late Ganpat Choudhary, Resident of Village-Chuglamo, P.O.-Chuglamo, P.S.-Barkatha, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. --- ---Respondents /Respondents 5. Sangita Devi, wife of Kishun Mahto, 6. Jiwali Mahto, Son of Late Gango Mahto, 7. Lakho Mahto, Son of Late Jiwan Mahto 8. Vasdeo Mahto @ Basudeo Mahto, Son of Late Jiwan Mahto, 9. Rajesh Mahto, Son of Late Triloki Mahto, Sl. No. 5 to 9 are Resident of Village -Chuglamo, P.O.-Chuglamo, P.S. -Barkatha, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand --- --- Performa Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the Respondents ….... : Mr. R. R. Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I : Mr. Ram Awtar Choubey, Advocate ….... 06th May 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 19th March 2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 273 of 2024. 2. Mr. R. R. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent suppressed material facts and moved the writ Court with unclean hands inasmuch as he did not disclose before the writ Court that correction in the Revisional Survey Records was not made, not even an application was filed by the respondent for correction. In paragraph no. 17 of this L.P.A., the appellant states as 3. under: “17. That the appellant states and submits that the appellant came to know about the pendency of the writ application, appeared by filing vakalatnama and counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hand by suppressing material facts and also none of the ground formulated in the writ petition arises for kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court in the facts of the present case. The petitioner has obtained the decree passed in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1980, dated 24.06.2005 on the basis of bogus and manufactured Hukumnama by practicing fraud upon the Court and also by suppressing the material facts giving wrong details of the suit land and without making the real issue, the answering respondents have filed Title Suit No. 2 of 2016/124 of 2020 in the Court of Additional Munsif, which was admitted and in the same notices were issued and the defendant No. 13 of the said suit has also filed written statement. The said suit is pending in the Court for final adjudication.” 4. The writ Court has recorded in paragraph no. 11 of the order dated 19th March 2024 that it was the duty of the State to correct the Revisional Survey Record which was running in the name of the defendant. The observations in paragraph no. 11 of the said order clearly indicate that a grievance was raised on behalf of the respondent that even after a decade no correction was made in the Revisional Survey Records. 5. This also is a matter of record that apprehending forceful dispossession the respondent had filed an application on which an order of status quo was passed on 2nd February 2024 by the writ Court. Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings Maintenance of Records Act, 1973 provides that on receipt of a notice under Sections 4 to 10 or an application under Sections 11 and 12 or a report under Section 13 the Circle Officer shall start a mutation proceeding and, after entering it in the mutation case register in the prescribed form, shall cause such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. The procedure prescribed under Section 14 lays down that on receipt of enquiry report and objection, if any, a decision is required to be taken within three months from the date of expiry of the period of filing 2 L.P.A. No. 165 of 2024 objections. Under the scheme of the Jharkhand Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, a decree of the Court is binding on the mutation authority. In “Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr.” (2007) 6 SCC 186 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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). ….” 6. Having regard to the provisions under the Maintenance of Records Act and the facts aforementioned, we do not find any error in the exercise of powers by the writ Court vide order dated 19th March 2024. We may further observe that in view of the nature of the direction contained in 19th March 2024, this Letters Patent Appeal shall not lie at the instance of the appellant and the State of Jharkhand did not challenge the said order. For the sake of fulness, we may further indicate that on a plea that Title Suit No. 2 of 2016/124 of 2020 is pending consideration the revenue authorities cannot refuse to follow the mandate in law and not grant rent receipts in favour of the respondent. 7. 8. Letters Patent Appeal No. 165 of 2024 is dismissed. As indicated in the writ Court’s order dated 19th March 2024, the State Authorities shall file affidavit on compliance by one
Decision
week in the said proceeding and the writ petition shall be listed before the jurisdictional Court on 15th May 2024. Basant B/S.Das (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) 3 L.P.A. No. 165 of 2024