1. Ramesh Nath Mishra, 2. Purushottam Nath Mishra, both sons of Late Lakshman Nath v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O and P.S. Khunti
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 7783 of 2011 1. Ramesh Nath Mishra, 2. Purushottam Nath Mishra, both sons of Late Lakshman Nath Mishra, resident of village Bijulia, P.O+ P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi Petitioner (s) --- --- Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O and P.S. Khunti, District-Khunti 2. The Circle Officer, Khunti, P.O + P.S. Khunti, District-Khunti --- --- Respondent (s) --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner (s):
Legal Reasoning
M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Ankit Vishal, Amaresh Kumar, Namita Sahay, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A-III Reserved on: 16.05.2024 --- ---- Pronounced on: 20.12.2024 Ambuj Nath, J: Petitioners Ramesh Nath Mishra and Purushottam Nath Mishra have filed this writ application for quashing of Notice issued by the Respondent No. 2 – Circle Officer, Khunti in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. 01/2011-12 (Annexure-5) and the entire proceedings of Sandigdh Jamabandi Case. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession over the portion of the land appertaining to Khata No. 142, Plot Nos. 508, 518, 892, 896, 987, 1614, 1832, 1939, 1958, 2373, 2536, 3206, 3208 and 2397 ad-measuring 23.88 acres and Plot Nos. 1963, 2646, 2303, 2259, 505, 537, 640, 670, 956, 983, 1026, 1069, 1077, 1594 and 1662 total area 32.45 acres under Khata No. 142 in Mouza- Fuddi, Thana No. 221 at Khunti. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the order dated 02.06.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 2 – Circle Officer, Khunti, whereby and wherein, on the basis of inquiry report of the Circle Inspector and Revenue Karmachari, the Respondent No. 2 has made recommendation to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms for cancellation of Jamabandi of the petitioners appertaining to the aforesaid lands. 2. Case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid land at village Fuddi was recorded in the Survey Khata in the name of Shri Satyendra Kumar Roy as Khewatdar. The said Khewatdar Shri Satyendra Kumar Roy sold his Khewat to Shri N.K. Roy, son of Prasad Roy, vide Registered Deed of Sale dated 19.01.1940. Shri N.K. Roy during his life time, settled the aforesaid land by Registered Deed No. 2391 dated 05.04.1943 to his sons namely Ranbir Roy, 2 Pradip Roy, Rustam Roy, Sunil Roy and Pradeep Roy. Shri N.K. Roy died in the year 1947. After his death, all his five sons inherited the aforesaid property and they executed the power of attorney and appointed Shri Pradeep Roy as their legal power of attorney holder and converted the said land in Bakast land of Jamindari. Pradeep Roy sold the properties of Khewat No. 3 ad-measuring 1738.78 acres of their Bakast, Zirat, Maziasi and Garmajarua Khas land by Registered Patta No. 5295 dated 25.07.1951 to Shri Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Shri Lakshman Nath Mishra, both sons of Padarath Nath Mishra of village Bijulia, Ratu, Ranchi. The name of Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra was entered into the revenue records and the State of Bihar started realizing rent from them. Both the petitioners are the sons of Lakshman Nath Mishra. 3. It is further case of the petitioners that Banshidhar Nath Mishra and others being the Khewatdar of Khewat No. 3 had made a raiyati settlement of the land measuring 24.62 acres of Khata No. 142 by grant of Sada Hukumnama coupled with delivery of possession and rent receipt in favour of Mahabir Mahto. The name of Mahabir Mahto was entered into the revenue records. 4. It is further case of the petitioners that at the time of vesting of Jamindari, both Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra filed an application under sections 5, 6 and 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act in Form-M showing that they had kept the aforesaid land as their raiyati land. Suddenly, out of blue, the Respondent No. 2-Circle Officer, Khunti initiated a Sandigdh Jamabandi Case and issued notice to the petitioners as to why their Jamabandi should not be cancelled. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Respondent No. 2-Circle Officer, Khunti has no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding against the petitioners for cancellation of their Jamabandi. It was further submitted that after vesting of Jamindari under the Land Reforms Act, with regard to the land appertaining to Khata No. 142, Plot Nos. 508, 518, 892, 896, 987, 1614, 1832, 1939, 1958, 2373, 2536, 3206, 3208 and 2397 ad-measuring 23.88 acres and Plot Nos. 1963, 2646, 2303, 2259, 505, 537, 640, 670, 956, 983, 1026, 1069, 1077, 1594 and 1662 total area 32.45 acres under Khata No. 142 in Mouza-Fuddi, Thana No. 221 at Khunti, Khewatdar submitted the return to the State Government by fling Form-M showing the name of the father of the petitioners Lakshman Nath Mishra that 3 the aforesaid land was settled to him by them. It was further submitted that the State Government had acknowledged the fact that the father of the petitioners Lakshman Nath Mishra was duly recognized as tenant of the aforesaid land and his name was entered into the revenue records and the State Government started realizing rent from him. It was finally submitted that the Respondents have continued to receive rent from the petitioners and their predecessor-in- interest for 50 years and therefore, the State Government cannot cancel their Jamabandi in a quasi-judicial proceeding. It was also submitted that only option left to the State Government was to institute a civil case before the competent authority for declaration of its right, title and interest. 6. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of The State of Jharkhand and others versus Chancla Devi passed in L.P.A. No. 142 of 2010 with L.P.A. No. 307 of 2009, para-9 thereof reads as under: “9. It appears from the facts of the case that the presumption on the part of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land is not permissible in the eyes of law. If the State Government is claiming the ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the original petitioners and which is in possession of the predecessor-in-title from 09.06.1942, the Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State of Jharkhand. They cannot drag the citizens to be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. Burden of proof that the State is owner of the property in question lies upon the State Government. The defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. There is vast difference between burden of proof for the plaintiff and for the defendant. The purchasers of the property by the registered sale deeds in the year 1992 from their predecessor-in-title Rang Nath Sahu, who is owner of the property from 09.06.1942, cannot be upset by a report of Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. Prima- facie, no fraud has been played by the purchasers of the property who are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Likewise, prima-facie, Rang Nath Sahu is the owner of the property, looking to the revenue entry from 1956-1995. Thus, more than 30 years old entries and documents cannot be upset by or cannot be brushed aside by one line report of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land.” Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of The State of Jharkhand and others versus Izhar Hussain in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018 and analogous cases dated 05.11.2020, in which Division Bench has held as under: “It is further settled position of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be annulled. Herein it is admitted fact that Jamabandi can 4 be created under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. We have gone across the provisions thereof, as contained in the Act, 1973 and have found that no provision confer upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi. The question would be that in absence of any power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer of this question would be in negative as statute confers power upon the authority and the authority can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon it under the statutory power and if any decision is taken in absence of any provision the same would be said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be without jurisdiction.
Decision
It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533. 20. This Court, after having gone into the details as above as also travelling across the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in The State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Chancla Devi passed in L.P.A. No. 142 of 2010 with L.P.A. No. 307 of 2009, wherein it has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if the State Government is claiming ownership upon the property in question which is in possession of the tenant/raiyat and his/her predecessors-in-title since 09.06.1942, Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State Government. 25. We, on appreciation of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of discussions made herein above, are of the view that there is no reason to differ with the view/opinion of the learned Single Judge, by coming to the conclusion that the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the revenue authorities is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they have exercised power conferred under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which as per the discussions made herein above has been found to be not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the case of the writ petitioner is that he is claiming title over the land in question on the basis of settlement made prior to 1st January, 1946 and further the additional Collector by way of order passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16 has already passed order on 17.03.2016 holding therein that the present raiyats i.e Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper. But without questioning and without reversal of that order, a fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and further long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by instituting a litigation before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.” 7. In order to prove their case, petitioners have filed photocopy of the certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 5295 dated 25.07.1951 executed by Pradip Roy in favour of Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra. Petitioners have also filed photocopy of rent receipts issued by the State 5 Government in relation to the aforesaid land. Petitioners have also filed copy of the order dated 10.12.1963 passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 08/1963-64, by virtue of which, order was passed for issuance of rent receipt in favour of Mahabir Mahto in whose name portion of the land appertaining to Khata No. 142 settled by Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra was ordered to be issued. 8. From perusal of the certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 5295 dated 25.07.1951, it appears that Pradip Roy sold the properties of Khewat No. 3 ad- measuring 1738.78 acres of land in favour of Bansidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra. Pradeep Roy had intermediary right over these properties. As such, after sale of these lands, nature of the land changed into Bakast land. It further appears that Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra later on transferred the land in question to the father of the petitioners. They also transferred the land in the name of Mahabir Mahto. Thereafter, name of these petitioners and Mahabir Mahto was entered in the revenue records and the State Government started realizing rent from them and also issued rent receipts. At the time of vesting of Jamindari, both Banshidhar Nath Mishra and Lakshman Nath Mishra submitted Form-M and also mentioned the fact that the land in question was settled in the name of father of these petitioners. 9. After the name of the father of the petitioners entered in the revenue records, rent receipts were issued by the State Government. Revenue records are public documents maintained by Government Officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. While it is true that revenue entries do not by itself confer title, but they are admissible in evidence as far as claim of possession is concerned and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence. Petitioners have produced a copy of the registered sale deed and mutation record which fortifies the claim of the petitioners that the land in question was settled / sold to their father by the intermediaries and subsequently, their name was entered into the revenue records and the State Government started realizing rent from him and issued rent receipts. 10. The State Government had continued taking rent from the petitioners since 1964. Suddenly, the State Government cannot wake from the slumber and on one fine day, claim that the land in question is Gairmajarua Malik land and 6 the entry made in the revenue records was not on the basis of the documents, which cannot be verified. If the State Government is claiming ownership of the land in question which the petitioners are claiming to be the owner and is in their possession since long, the only remedy available to the State is to bring a civil suit for declaration of their right, title and interest. As the name of the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest have been recorded in the revenue records, the burden of proof will lie on the State Government to show that the entry was wrongly made. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the only remedy open to the State is to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration that Jamabandi of the petitioners was obtained by fraudulent means and they have not perfected their right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of settlement by ex- landlord or otherwise. 12. Accordingly, notice issued by the Respondent No. 2-Circle Officer, Khunti in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. 01/2011-12 (Annexure-5) and order dated 02.06.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby and wherein, on the basis of the inquiry report of Circle Inspector and Revenue Karmachari, the Respondent No. 2-Circle Officer, Khunti has made recommendation to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms for cancellation of Jamabandi of the aforesaid lands, are quashed. This writ application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. . Ranjeet/ Uploaded (Ambuj Nath, J)