1. Abdul Razaque 2. Zafar Ansari .... .... … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Land Reforms
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2546 of 2009 ------ 1. Abdul Razaque 2. Zafar Ansari .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi .... 4. The Circle Officer, Bero, Ranchi .... .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the provisions of the said Act, provides that on receipt of notice 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 in the mutation case register shall cause such enquiry to be made as deemed necessary. The appeal shall lie under Section 15 to the Land Reform Deputy Collector from the order passed under Section 14 within 30 days of the date of order and the provision of revision is made under Section 16 wherein the Collector of the District on application made to him or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the Rules made thereunder by any authority of officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or dispose of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit. No application shall be entertained unless it is made within 30 days from the date of the order to the Collector. 9. Edifice of claim over the land in question is raised on an unregistered settlement deed called Sada Hukumnama on 10.08.1947, purported to be made by the ex-landlord at the twilight stage of abolition of zamindari. Settlement deed is a type of agricultural lease and requires registration of instrument of settlement in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. However, in Mt. Ugni v. Chowa Mahto, AIR 1968 Pat 302 it has been held:- “17. The unregistered hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Oral evidence of the terms of the lease will not be admissible; but, independent of the hukumnama, the rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of the right of the lessee.” 10. What follows from the above ruling is that in cases where there are collateral evidence of cultivating possession of a party consequent upon the said settlement, then such a Sada Hukumnama can be accepted as evidence of transfer of title in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of any such evidence, mere production of Sada Hukumnama cannot be accepted as an evidence of actual settlement. 11. Vesting of intermediary interest took place in 1956 under the BLR Act 1950. Post vesting, the land revenue administration was seized with two important functions. One was payment of compensation to the proprietors and tenure holders with respect to the estate and tenure that vested in the State for which detailed procedure has been laid down in Chapter V of the BLR Act. The second was the rent assessment and preparation of rent roll for which the detailed procedure has 3 been laid down in the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 for determination of fair and ground rent has been laid down from Rules 6 to 7-I of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951. Rule 6 provides that in determining the rent payable by a proprietor or tenure-holder in respect of lands left in his possession under Section 6, the Collector shall have regard to the average rate of rent. Rule 7 B deals with the form and manner of application under Form K by the outgoing proprietor of tenure holder of an estate or tenure vested in the State. On the basis of return filed, Rent-Roll is prepared under Form M of Rule 7-I. 12. In the present case, there is absolutely no collateral evidence with regard to the settlement of land in favour of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the said settlement of the land and filing of return, rent roll should have been prepared and Jamabandi opened in the name of the Petitioner, rent ought to have been accepted and receipts issued in his favour. There is no evidence with regard to it, to the contrary Jamabandi was opened in the name of Balku Mahto. As per the provisions of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, order of mutation is passed by the Circle Officer and appeal is preferred before the LRDC. Instantly, for reasons best known to the LRDC, order of mutation was passed in favour of the petitioner in the first instance by the LRDC, without any jurisdiction. LRDC could have passed such an order only in appeal and not at the first instance by encroaching in the power of the Circle Officer. Such an order being without jurisdiction and without any evidence of possession, was non est in the eye of law. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I ------ Order No.11 / Dated :13.02.2024 1. The order dated 04.03.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi, in Mutation Appeal Case No.109 R 15/2003-04 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Circle Officer, Bero (Respondent No.4) has been allowed by setting aside the order of the L.R.D.C. to open Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner with regard to Khata No.323, Plot Nos.272, 275 & 271 having total area of 13.58 acres of land is under challenge in the instant Writ Petition. 2. The land of Khata No.323, Plot Nos.272, 275 and 271 of Mouja- Itki, Thana- Bero, admeasuring an area of 13.58 acres was recorded in the Revisional Survey as Gair Majarua Malik in the name of Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo as Ex- landlord of the said land. 3. The petitioners claims 3.5 acres of the land, as detailed above on the basis of Sada Hukumnana dated 10.08.1947 by the ex-landlord. After vesting of the zamindari, the Ex-landlord submitted M-Form showing the petitioners as settled Raiyat of the said land and thereafter, he is coming in peaceful possession over the same. 4. The petitioners applied for mutation and for opening of Jamabandi of the said land in the year 1997-98 and accordingly, Misc. Case No.38 R8/ 1997-98 was registered in which a report was called for by the Circle Inspector and it was found that Jamabandi was already running in the name of one Balku Mahto. These facts were placed before the L.R.D.C. and vide order dated 16.01.1999 it was ordered by the LRDC that Jamabandi running in the name of said Balku Mahto was illegal and the Jamabandi was directed to be opened in the name of the petitioners. 5. The Circle Officer, Bero preferred an appeal against the order passed by the LRDC in which the impugned order has been passed. 6. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that appeal was time barred as it was filed after 4 years of the order passed by the LRDC. 2 7. The main contention of the petitioner is that it was an inter-se dispute between two Raiyats, the petitioners and Balku Mahto whereas the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the land in question was not Raiyati, land. There is no provision under the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the said Act’] for cancellation of Jamabandi which was running in the name of Balku Mahto. 8.
Decision
any, stands disposed of. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)