1. Abhay Kumar Shroff 2. Amar Nath Shroff 3. Kiran Devi Shroff 4. Sushila v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No.6316 of 2009 1. Abhay Kumar Shroff 2. Amar Nath Shroff 3. Kiran Devi Shroff 4. Sushila Baranwal .... .. ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar .. ... ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ........... For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the State
Legal Reasoning
paper or any evidence either oral or documentary to show that they have prima facie 3 title on the said property. Whereas on the other side the plaintiffs had filed documents of title acquired through registered sale deeds from the previous owner Smt Ganga Bati Mallick. 16. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot decide whether after vesting, the respondent(s)-State acquired title over the land. The adjudication in the instant writ petition is confined to the possessory right of the petitioners. Apart from the evidence of possession in favour of the Ganga Bati Mallick, vendor of the land, the name of the Petitioner was entered in the register of Madhupur Municipality and they were paying municipal tax for which the tax receipt was issued to them. Suit of eviction was also ordered in favour of the Petitioner in which the State of Bihar was a party. It will be relevant to refer to the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of somewhat similar nature. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 23. The revenue records of the State revealed that the disputed property stood in the name of the defendants. It is unfortunate that the Superintendent of Police, a senior official of the Indian Police Service, made repeated attempts to grab the property of the true owner by filing repeated appeals before different forums claiming right of ownership by way of adverse possession. 45. If the protectors of law become the grabbers of the property (land and building), then, people will be left with no protection and there would be a total anarchy in the entire country. It is indeed a very disturbing and dangerous trend. In our considered view, it must be arrested without further loss of time in the larger public interest. No government department, public undertaking, and much less the Police Department should be permitted to perfect the title of the land or building by invoking the provisions of adverse possession and grab the property of its own citizens in the manner that has been done in this case. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the reasons as
Arguments
: Mr. Manish Mishra, GP.V ......... …... C.A.V. ON 09.04.2024 PRONOUNCED ON 22.04.2024 Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (R. No.2) to vacate the land and hand-over the possession of the property of the petitioners measuring 9 Bighas, 12 Kathas and 5.5 Chhataks including constructed houses on it known as ‘Marble House’ at Mouza Chhota Shekhpura within Madhupur Municipal Ward No.XII, Holding No.76 (41 Old) appertaining to Pathrol Estate, P.S. Madhupur, District- Deoghar. PETITIONER’S CASE 2. Land in question was purchased by Hanuman Prasad Shroff (since deceased) by 10 registered sale-deeds executed in the year 1988 from its rightful owner Smt. Ganga Bati Mullick. Petitioners claim to derive title through said Hanuman Prasad Shroff. 3. Brief history of the manner in which the title passed is that the land, measuring 15 bighas, 12 Kathas and 5.5 Chhataks under PS Madhupur, District Deoghar was leased out by the then Pathrol Estate in favour of one Mehrali Sheikh in the year 1900 for a term of 50 years. Being a Morasi Mokarai patta, lease holder Mehral Sheikh granted settlement of 9 bighas, 12 kathas and 5.5 chhataks in favour of one E.M Floyed for construction of a house on 15.11.1900 and on the very same day he transferred to Hanri David Benzamin vide sale deed dated 15.11.1900, who constructed a house over the said land. Sons of Mehrali Seikh sold intermediary or mul-raiyati interest also with zamindari rights, with respect to 12 Kathas and 5.5 Chhataks of the land along with the house constructed by Hanri David Benzamin to Amrit Lal Sil by registered deed of sale dated 13.10.1913. 1 4. The sons of Hanri David Benzamin, who was granted settlement of 9 Bighas 12 kathas and 5.5 Chhataks of land had constructed a house on the portion of the said land known as Marble House. The son of Henry David Benzamin and the legal heir and successor sold the said land to Praduman Kumar Mullick in the year 1919 vide registered sale deed. 5. Widow of Praduman Kumar Mullick namely Ganga Bati Mullick sold the land to the Petitioners. When the Petitioners were purchasing the land in question Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar restrained the registration of the deeds. Said restrain passed by the Deputy Commissioner was however vacated vide order dated 21.07.1988. However, an escheat proceeding was initiated against the Petitioners under section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner which was subsequently vacated by the learned Commissioner by an order passed in Misc. Appeal No.150/88-89. 6. Land in question along with the Marble House was duly mutated in the name of the vendor, Srimati Gangabati Mullick who was successor in interest of Prafulla Kumar Mullick. 7. Since the petitioners had already purchased the land, Petitioner no.4 namely Mahadeo Prashad Barnwal filed an appeal/revision before the additional collector Deoghar, vide R.M.A. (mutation) No.2/1988-89 against the order dated 30.04.1988. This appeal was allowed, however the Additional Collector directed the Circle Officer to record the land as ‘lease hold land’ and accordingly directed the Halka karamchari to record the ‘lease hold land’ in the name of Smt. Ganga Bati Mullick and transferees. 8. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited was having a godown over the said land and for their eviction, Title (Eviction) Suit No.31 of 1991 was filed by the petitioners along with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant(s) from interfering with the suit premises. 9. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners vide judgment dated 06.03.1993 and decree was drawn accordingly. The land, in question along with the possession of constructed building was handed over to the petitioners by Assistant Manager, BSFC, Madhupur vide letter dated 07.06.1993 (Annexure-7). After coming into possession, petitioners are paying holding tax to Madhupur Municipality (Annexure 8 series). 10. The peaceful possession of the petitioners was attempted to be disturbed by some anti-social elements against which petitioners moved before the Commissioner, 2 Santhal Pargana division, Dumka for restoring the possession of the petitioner over the said land and the land in question was vacated by the District Administration against which private party(s) moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 2418/2005 which was dismissed and intra Court Appeal arising thereof was also dismissed. 11. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite the specific order of the Civil Court by which the private party (s) were evicted from the land, in question. The possession of the said land is not being handed over to the petitioners. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT[S]- STATE 12. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the State is that in Title Eviction Suit No. 31 of 1991, the title of the land was not decided. Reliance is placed on 2014 11 SCC 438 wherein it has been held that in eviction suit, title cannot be decided. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance 1990 SCC OnLine Patna 100. 13. Furthermore, the land, in question, was obtained on lease by one Seikh Mehar Ali from Tikait Braj Bihari Singh Ghatwal on 13.05.1900 and was counter signed by H.B. Williams Esquire Commissioner of the Santhal Pargana on 25.09.1900. The lease holder Seikh Mehar Ali executed deed dated 13.11.1900 for 50 years to E.M. Floyed and E.M. Floyed sold the said property to Henry David Benzamin Lyness. The said land was purchased by Pradyuman Mallick on 25.08.1919. 14. The land was part of ghatwal tenancy which vested in the State by the operation of Section 63 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. ANALYSIS:- 15. Facts are not in dispute in the present case. What is in dispute is the inference being drawn from the admitted facts. Admitted fact is that the land in question was given in a lease for perpetuity (Mokrari Patta) for 50 years in 1900 by the ex-landlord and thereafter it changed hands by registered sale deed and finally was purchased by the Petitioners and mutated in their name. The escheat proceeding directed to be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner was dropped by the order of Commissioner in Misc. Appeal No.150/1988-89. The property in question was leased out to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, to be used as a warehouse. Petitioner filed suit for getting the premises evicted in Title (Eviction) Suit No.31 of 1991 against the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, in which the state of Bihar was also a party. Eviction suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. While passing the order, the learned court observed that defendants failed to file a chit of
Decision
discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and Respondent No.2 is directed to hand over the possession of the Property in question to the Petitioners within eight weeks of the order, and Marble House constructed on the said land shall not be used as police picket. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 22nd April, 2024. AFR/ Sandeep Uploaded 4