1. Arvind Mahto @ Arvind Singh 2. Arun Mahto 3. Raj Kumar Mahto 4 v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. - Daltonganj
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 7513 of 2016 1. Arvind Mahto @ Arvind Singh 2. Arun Mahto 3. Raj Kumar Mahto 4. Binay Mahto Sl. No. 1 to 4 all sons of Late Munshi Mahto 5. Anarkali Devi, widow of Late Manushi Mahto 6. Jamuna Mahto 7. Vindhyachal Mahto Sl. No. 6 and 7 both sons of Dharmdeo Mahto All are residents of Village - Jamuniadih, P.O. - Udaypura, P.S.- Mantu, District- Palamau (Jharkhand). Petitioners … … Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. - Daltonganj, District - Palamau. 3. The Additional Collector, Palamau, P.O. + P.S.- Daltonganj, District - Palamau. 4. The Circle Officer, Manatu, P.O. + P.S. – Manatu, District- Daltonganj at Palamau 5. The Circle Inspector, Daltonganj, P.O. + P.S. - Daltonganj, District - Palamau. 6. Sohan Mistri, son of Late Anacch Misri 7. Dukhu Mistri, son of Late Bihari Mistri 8. Gullo Mistri, son of Late Bhaju Mistri 9. Karamdag Mistri 10. Balkeshwar Mistri Sl. No. 9 and 10 both sons of Late Gopichand Mistri 11. Sunil Mistri 12. Anil Mistri Sl. No. 11 and 12 both sons of Late Mahavir Mistri 13. Jal Mohammad Mian 14. Kalim Mian Sl. No. 13 and 14 both sons of Late Sulu Mian 15. Jahur Mian 16. Ishak Mian 17. Sattar Mian 18. Kalim Mia Sl. No. 15 to 18 all sons of Late Subhan Mian 19. Sudi Mian, son of Late Jabarli Mian 20. Lochan Teli, son of Late Dhajan Teli 21. Lalan Sao, son of Late Bhikham Sao 22. Rauf Mian, son of Late Latif Mian 23. Yusuf Mian, son of Late Makhan Mian 24. Sajik Mian 25. Sardar Mian Sl. No. 24 and 25 both sons of Late Subhan Mian 26. Jagarnath Mistri 27. Krishna Mistri 28. Ganesh Mistri Sl. No. 26 to 28 all sons of Late Shivnandan Mistri 29. Lakhan Mistri 30. Krit Mistri 31. Dineshwar Mistri Sl. No. 29 to 31 all sons of Late Vipat Mistri 32. Tetar Mistri, son of Late Basudeo Mistri 33. Dukhi Mistri, son of Late Rajdeo Mistri 34. Ramnath Mistri, son of Late Kailash Mistri 35. Asha Bibi 36. Noorjahan Bibi Sl. No. 35 and 36 both daughters of Late Arjun Sai 37. Jakruddin Sai 38. Alimuddin Sai 39. Quddus Sai Sl. No. 37 to 39 all sons of Late Kurban Sai 40. Piro Sai, son of Rasul Sai 41. Sarfu Sai, son of Jamadali Sai 42. Narsu Sai, son of Late Jamadali Sai 43. Saraj Sai, son of Late Jamadali Sai 44. Ramu Singh, son of Late Nepal Singh 45. Udheshwar Pandey, son of Late Ajab Pandey Sl. No. 6 to 45 all are residents of Village- Naudiha, P.O. & P.S.- … Respondents Panki, District Palamau (Jharkhand). … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
Singh Vs. State of Bihar) and followed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2018 (2) JCR 600 (Ratan Lal Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand), and also in WP(C ) No. 849 of 2017 decided on 25th of June 2024. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in such circumstances the exercise of power by the Additional Collector is wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that the private respondents could have moved before the Circle Officer who would have verified the records and passed an appropriate order and ultimately, the parties would have had their right with regard to appeal or revision in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1973. He submits that on this short point, the impugned order be set-aside and it may be left open to the private respondents to take steps in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has submitted that the power of revision has been exercised by the Additional Collector. However, he is not in a position to satisfy this Court by referring to any provision of the aforesaid Act of 1973 that the Additional Collector has the power of revision under the Act of 1973. He has gone through the judgments which have been cited by the petitioners and he is not in a position to distinguish the same. 8. After hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1973 and also the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Patna High Court in the judgment reported in 2003 Supreme (Pat) 255 (Kapildeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar) and followed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2018 (2) JCR 600 (Ratan Lal Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand), and also in WP (C) No. 849 of 2017 decided on 25th of June 2024 , this Court finds that Additional Collector is not an authority under the Act of 1973 and the petition filed by the private respondents before the Additional Collector was not maintainable . 4 9. This Court also finds that the private respondents had filed an application directly before the Additional Collector who has passed the impugned order by putting a nomenclature of miscellaneous case. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, Additional Collector is not an authority under the provisions of aforesaid Act of 1973. On this technical ground, the impugned order dated 10.09.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 43/2003-04 is set-aside. 10. Certainly, it will be open to the private respondents to agitate
Arguments
--- : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate : Ms. Alisha Lakra, Advocate : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate --- 07/05.12.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State. 2. In spite of service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the private respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the order dated 10.9.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 43/2003-04 by the Additional Collector, Palamau, the Respondent No. 3, (Annexure-1); whereby and whereunder the terms of the order dated 10.9.2016 the Additional Collector, the Respondent No. 3, has directed to cancel the Jamabandi of the petitioner and create/open new Jamabandi in the name of the private respondents; 2 AND During pendency of the instant writ application, operation of the order dated 10.9.2016 as contained in Annexure-1 be stayed and a further direction be passed upon the respondents to issue rent receipt in the name of the petitioner. AND/OR For the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing equitable justice to the petitioner." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the private respondents had moved directly before the additional collector stating that they are the legal heirs of the recorded tenant in connection with the property involved in the present case and they had a grievance in connection with running Jamabandi in favour of the petitioners. He submits that the additional collector has passed an order of cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners and has directed the circle officer to open a Jamabandi in the name of the legal heirs of the recorded tenant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the private respondents had also relied upon certain documents including rent receipt. However, he submits that the Additional Collector is not an authority under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973) and the proceeding itself was not maintainable before the said authority. He has submitted that the relevant provisions are – section 14 which deals with the requisition and disposal of mutation case, section 15 which deals with the appeal before the LRDC, and section 16 which deals with the power of revision of the Collector of the district. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been held by this Court that the Collector of District would be the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction. The 3 learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon''ble Patna High Court reported in 2003 Supreme (Pat) 255 (Kapildeo
Decision
their grievance before the competent authority in accordance with law. 11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5