The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2007 Akhtar Mian, son of Rajif Mian, resident of Village – Sasang, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District - Latehar Versus Petitioner … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner Palamau Division, Medininagar 3. Additional Collector, Latehar 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Palamau 6. Circle Office, Latehar. 7. (i) Sahabuddin Mian (ii) Saiful Mian (iii) Afzal Mian (iv) Khajo Mian All S/o Lt. Jiyauddin Mian R/o Vill- Sasang, P.O. – Latehar, P.S. … Respondents Latehar District -Latehar --- … CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp. No.7 For the State --- : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, AC to SC (L&C) I --- 17/28.11.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) In the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.9.02 (Annexure – 4), passed by Respondent no.3 in Misc. Case No.5/02-03, in terms of which the concerned respondent has been pleased to reverse the order dated 19.9.01 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar in Misc. Case No.8/01-02 and has been further pleased to cancel the settlement of land made in favour of this petitioner; (ii) a further writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.9.06 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision Case No.8/03 in terms of which the concerned respondent has been pleased to dismiss the revision preferred by this petitioner against the order dated 19.9.02 passed by respondent no.3 in Misc. Case No.05/02-03; (iii) any other appropriate writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while giving the
Legal Reasoning
background of the case, has submitted that the land in dispute corresponds to Khata No. 58/181 of Plot No.214/756, having an area of 24 acres in village Sasang, P.O. and P.S. Lathehar. The land was Garamajurwa Malik land, surrounded by and adjacent to the other raiyati lands. The petitioner made the land cultivable and fertile, and thereafter, he made an application for settlement of the land. 4. Consequently, a general notice was issued calling for any objection, but no objection was filed. Ultimately, after due inquiry, the land was settled in favour of the petitioner vide settlement case No. 244 of 1995-1996, which was followed by issuance of settlement parwana and rent receipts which have been annexed as Annexure – 2 series of this writ petition. The date of settlement is 26.08.1995. The learned counsel submits that no appeal was preferred in connection with the settlement, although there is a provision for filing an appeal. He submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land involved in this case. 5. However, after a lapse of six years, private respondent No. 7, who has now been substituted, filed a miscellaneous case, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 2001-2002 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (hereinafter referred to as the LRDC), seeking the cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner and prayed for allotment of the same land in favour of the private
Legal Reasoning
respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegation made by the private respondent, the property was made cultivable by the private respondent, who also claimed to be in possession of the property. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner had misrepresented himself belonging to the caste, namely “Momin”, which falls under backward category, although the actual caste of the petitioner was “Sheikh Siddiqui”, which falls under higher class. The learned counsel submits that the petition was rejected by the LRDC vide Order dated 19.12.2001, rejecting both pleas. Against this, respondent no. 7 filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 2002-2003. 6. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner did not belong to the backward category and that a recent survey indicated that the private respondent of this writ petition was in illegal possession. The settlement was consequently declared illegal. Against the said order passed by the Additional Collector, the 2 petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was numbered as Revision Case No.8 of 2003. The said revision was dismissed by holding that the petitioner did not belong to backward category and a reference was made to another settlement Case No.7 of 1997-1998, wherein the disputed land was shown to be in illegal possession of the private respondent. Another reason for upholding the order of the appellate authority was that the petitioner belongs to a higher category of caste. 7. The learned counsel submits that it was the specific case of the petitioner that he belongs to the backward category, Momin. However, the appellate and revisional authorities, through the impugned orders, have held that the petitioner belongs to a higher caste, namely "Sheikh Siddiqui." The learned counsel further submitted that the settlement was made under Settlement Case No.244 of 1995-96, which was decided in favour of the petitioner, and the settlement patta was issued on 26.08.1995 after following all the required procedures and followed by issuance of rent receipts. This case has no connection with other Settlement Case No.7 of 1997-98. 8. The learned counsel submits that the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are perverse and call for interference. He has also submitted that the appellate authority and the revisional authority have no jurisdiction to declare the caste status of the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents, has submitted that on the basis of materials brought on record, both the appellate authority and the revisional authority have recorded findings that the petitioner does not belong to the backward class and the caste declared by the father of the petitioner in the sale deed was taken into consideration, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he belongs to backward category. He has also submitted that the other materials were also taken into consideration to hold that the petitioner was not in possession of the property and in the recent survey, it was mentioned that the private respondent no.7 was in illegal possession of the property. However, the learned counsel has 3 not been able to show from the records as to when the survey was conducted wherein the private respondents were shown to be in illegal possession of the property. 10. The learned counsel for the State has also made similar arguments as that of the private respondents. 11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the property involved in this case was allotted to the petitioner by way of settlement as back as on 26.08.1995 in Settlement Case No.244 of 1995-1996 which was followed by issuance of rent receipts. The rent receipts as well as the settlement have been annexed along
Decision
with the writ petition. The records also reveal that due advertisement was also issued prior to settlement and admittedly no objection was raised at any point of time prior to settlement. The settlement became final. However, after expiry of more than six years from the date of the settlement, the private respondent no.7 filed a petition for cancellation of settlement while asserting that it was the private respondents who had made the land cultivable and was in possession of the property and also alleged that the petitioner had suppressed his caste and wrongly obtained the settlement. A further prayer was made that the property be settled in favour of respondent no. 7. 12. The said petition was rejected by LRDC by a detailed order as contained in Annexure - 3 dated 19.12.2001 by holding that no caste certificate was produced in connection with the caste status of the petitioner and the materials produced could not prove that the land in question was in possession of the private respondents. 13. The appellate court allowed the appeal by holding that the petitioner does not belong to backward category but belongs to higher category and while holding so the authority also referred to sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner wherein the caste was disclosed. The appellate authority also recorded that in the recent survey, it was found that the private respondent was in illegal possession of the property but the date of such survey etc. has not been mentioned. This assumes importance in view of the fact that the 4 settlement in this case made in favour of the petitioner way back in the 1995 after following due procedure and it was followed by issuance of rent receipts. The Revisional Authority has also confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority by holding that the private respondents herein were shown to be in possession of the disputed property and also in another case bearing Bando-Basti Case No.7 of 1997-1998 and that the petitioner belongs to higher class category and not to a backward class. The settlement was cancelled on two grounds, private respondents were found to be in illegal possession of the disputed property and the petitioner did not belong to a backward class. 14. This Court finds that a dispute was raised in connection with the caste status of the petitioner, and the private respondents, instead of raising the dispute with regard to the caste status of the petitioner before the appropriate authority i.e. the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development” (1994) 6 SCC 241 followed by further notification issued by the State Government, has raised dispute regarding caste before the respondent authorities. 15. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities had no jurisdiction to declare the caste status of one or the other person. Once a dispute has been raised, such dispute can be decided only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and no other authority. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority holding that the petitioner belongs to higher class and does not belong to backward class cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 16. So far as the possession of the property is concerned, the records reveal that the procedure was followed for the purposes of settlement, including issuance of the advertisement, calling for objection and no objection was received and ultimately following further procedure, the settlement patta was issued in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1995. The settlement became final. The private respondents raised the dispute only after expiry of six 5 years and the authorities have referred to another settlement case bearing Settlement Case No.7 of 1997-1998 [which itself was instituted after the settlement made in favour of the petitioner] to hold that as per the Settlement Case No.7 of 1997-1998, the property involved in this case was in possession of the private respondents. Further, the entry made in so called recent survey has been taken into consideration to hold that the private respondents were found in illegal possession of the property but no reference has been made as to when the survey was conducted. 17. This Court is of the considered view that the settlement having become final, rent receipts having been issued in favour of the petitioner, the settlement could not have been cancelled by holding that the private respondents were found in illegal possession by referring to another case being Settlement Case No.7 of 1997-1998 and by referring to some survey without any further details with regards to date of survey etc. 18. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority on the aforesaid two grounds are hereby set aside. 19. However, the issue regarding the caste status of the petitioner can certainly be raised by the private respondents before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, it will certainly be open to the private respondents or the State to take appropriate steps for cancellation of settlement and proceeding with the land involved in this case in accordance with law if ultimately the caste status of the petitioner is found to have been wrongly declared by the petitioner at the time of settlement. 20. This petition is hereby allowed with the aforesaid observations. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6