The High Court | Courts & Cases

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6136 of 2016 Anant Kumar Singh, son of Late Umesh Narayan Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6137 of 2016 Adarsh Kumar, son of Late Devender Choudhary, resident of village – Rama Nagar, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 1 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6153 of 2016 Vandana Singh, wife of Arun Kumar Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6156 of 2016 Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Umesh Narayan Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 2 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6158 of 2016 Anshu Mala Thakur, wife of Adarsh Kumar, resident of village Rama Nagar, P.O. Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6160 of 2016 Adarsh Kumar, son of Late Devender Choudhary, resident of village – Rama Nagar, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 3 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. Respondents …. With W.P.(C) No. 6166 of 2016 Kiran Singh, wife of Arbind Kumar Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. Respondents …. With W.P.(C) No. 6167 of 2016 Manibala Sinha, wife of Dr. Jitender Kumar, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner 4 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6170 of 2016 Ranjana Singh, wife of Anant Kumar Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6173 of 2016 Asha Singh, widow of Late Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh. .... Petitioner 5 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6174 of 2016 Arbind Kumar Singh, son of Late Umesh Narayan Singh, resident of village Industrial Area Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Inspector, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 5. Halka Karamchari, Ramgarh, P.O. –Ramgarh, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh. …. Respondents P R E S E N T

Legal Reasoning

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. 6 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to G.A.-III ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. All these Writ Petitions have been filed with the prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing issuance of rent receipts in favour of the petitioners in connection with the land the area and mutation case number of which have been mentioned against the respective writ petitions, under Khata No.1, Plot No.1364, Mouza –Marar, P.S. No. 144 in the District of Ramgarh, the details of which have been mentioned in the following tabular chart:- Sl. No. W.P.(C) No. Area in Acres Mutation Case No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6136 of 2016 1.23 254 of 2008-2009 6137 of 2016 0.5 398 of 1999-2000 6153 of 2016 0.16 2027 of 2008-2009 6156 of 2016 1.23 254 of 2008-2009 6158 of 2016 6160 of 2016 0.5 0.5 399 of 1999-2000 400 of 1999-2000 6166 of 2016 0.25 673 of 2005-2006` 6167 of 2016 0.1 1684 of 2005-2006 6170 of 2016 0.25 672 of 2005-2006 6173 of 2016 1.77 254 of 2008-2009 6174 of 2016 1.14 254 of 2008-2009 7 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the descendants of Umesh Narayan Singh. Umesh Narayan Singh is the owner of the land and the land was mutated in his name and revenue receipts were issued in his name also. In the year 1992-93 a Suspected Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 24 of 1992-93 was initiated against the said common ancestor of the petitioners namely Umesh Narayan Singh. The said proceeding was dropped after verifying the entire document of Umesh Narayan Singh and in terms of Jamabandi Case No. 24 of 1992-93, it was ordered that rent receipt be issued with respect to 15.56 ¾ Acres of land of Khata No.1 in favour of Umesh Narayan Singh and consequently rent receipts were issued in his favour. Umesh Narayan Singh sold part of the land. After sale of the land by Umesh Narayan Singh, rent receipts were issued with respect to 14.48 Acres of land in the name of Umesh Narayan Singh. After death of Umesh Narayan Singh in the year 2005, his legal heirs mutually partitioned the land of Umesh Narayan Singh. On the basis of the mutual partition, they applied for the correction slip which applications were registered as the mutation case numbers; as mentioned in the aforesaid table. In all such mutation cases, after issuance of general notice and after getting report from the Circle Inspector, the Circle Officer allowed the said case and pursuant to which the names of the petitioners were entered separately. Rent receipts were also granted in favour of the writ petitioners in respect of the areas of the land mentioned in the 8 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases aforesaid table. All of a sudden, in the year 2012, the respondents stopped issuing rent receipts in favour of the petitioners, even though the names of the petitioners have been duly mutated and even correction slips have been issued. Hence, these writ petitions has been filed with the prayer as already indicated above in foregoing paragraphs of this judgement. 4. The case of the respondents is that the vendors of Umesh Narayan Singh has no right, title and interest to sale the land to Umesh Narayan Singh, hence such deed of transfer is void ab initio and is a mere paper transaction. Though the name of Umesh Narayan Singh appears in the Register-II but the ‘Pradhikar’ column of the said Register-II does not mention any order of the competent authority for creation of the Jamabandi in the name of Umesh Narayan Singh. Thus, without any order of the competent authority, Jamabandi was created in the name of Umesh Narayan Singh which is void ab initio. The respondents further pleaded that the rent receipt, if any, are collusive rent receipts and neither Umesh Narayan Singh nor his successor remained in possession of the concerned lands at any point of time. It is further pleaded by the respondents that the purported order passed in Suspected Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 24/92-93 does not bears any signature of any Officer, hence the said purported order is not a valid and legal order but the respondents admit that Memo No. 71 dated 13.01.1993 was issued by the then Circle Officer without having any supporting order for issuing such memo. The 9 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases respondents further pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh directed the present Circle Officer, Ramgarh to enquire the original record of the Suspected Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 24/92-93 and after receiving the report of the present Circle Officer, Ramgarh, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh has issued show cause notice to the concerned Circle Officer, Circle Inspector, Karamchari and Office Clerk. The respondents also admit that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has also been initiated and notices have been

Decision

issued to each of the writ petitioners and the perusal of the notices issued to each of the writ petitioners suggests that the Jamabandi created in the name of each of the writ petitioners has been reported to be suspected by the Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector and though such notices were issued on 24.01.2022 but till the said Jamabandi in the name of the writ petitioners have not been cancelled and the files are still pending for disposal of the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since it is the admitted case of the respondents from the contents of the notices issued under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 that Jamabandi in the Revenue Record exists in the name of each of the writ petitioners and the same has not yet been cancelled and only a report has been received that the same is suspected but suspected cannot be equated with cancellation and unless and until it is cancelled, the respondents do not have any right to 10 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases arbitrarily and illegally stop accepting rent and granting receipt therefore in respect of the lands, the Jamabandi of which admittedly stands in the name of the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shishir Kumar Chakravarty & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2006 (3) JCR 415 (Jhr), para -8 & 9 of which reads as under:- “8. It is a settled law that mutation of name/creation of Jamabandi does not create any right or title in favour of one or other nor cancellation of mutation/Jamabandi extinguishes right and title of the genuine owner. It is only the person, who is in possession, his name is recorded in Register-II and rent is accepted by the State. 9. In the present case, the names of the petitioners have already been mutated, as discussed above and not disputed by the respondents. As such, they cannot refuse to accept the rent in pursuance of such mutation on the ground that the lease period has expired on 31st March, 1996 and has not yet been extended.” Submits that the law is well settled that mutation of name/creation of Jamabandi does not create any right or title in favour of one or other nor cancellation of mutation/Jamabandi extinguishes the right and title of the genuine owner. It is only the person who is in possession, his name is recorded in Register-II and rent is accepted by the State and as the name of the petitioners have already been mutated, hence State cannot refuse to accept rent in pursuance of such mutation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Islam 11 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) JCR 485 (Jhr), para-9 of which reads as under:- It has been repeatedly held that Jamabandi “9 created in favour of a raiyat confers valuable right and the same cannot be interfered with or taken away lightly, arbitrarily and illegally. If there is any defect in creation of Jamabandi or if the Jamabandi is wrongly opened, the State can challenge the same in a legal proceeding before the competent court of law. They cannot simply refuse to accept rent and grant rent receipts.” And submits that therein it has been held that the Jamabandi created in favour of the raiyat confers valuable right and the same cannot be interfered with or taken away lightly, arbitrarily and illegally. If there is any defect in creation of Jamabandi or if Jamabandi is wrongly opened, the State can challenge the same in a legal proceeding before the competent Court of Law. It cannot simply refuse to accept rent and grant rent receipts thereof. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, drawing attention of this Court to the letter of the Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department of the Government of Jharkhand regarding regularization of the land bearing no. 06/Land Regularization-89/2020/1704/RA that therein all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand have been intimated that in the letter dated 2861 dated 08.06.2017, it was directed that the Jamabandi in relation to Gairmajarua Land entered in the Register-II on the basis of Sale Deed/Patta/Hukumnama registered prior to 01.01.1946, the mutation and online land revenue receipt be issued ultimately by 12 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer will verify and make physical verification in the files opened in respect of illegal/suspected Jamabandi to be cancelled and after such verification, after being fully satisfied will pass orders and then only the online receipt is to be issued and as the said suspected Jamabandi files are pending, hence the respondents are not accepting the rent and granting receipts thereof. Hence, it is submitted that these writ petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the Jamabandi stands recorded in the name of the writ petitioners. It is also the undisputed fact that since January, 2022 respective Suspected Jamabandi Cancellation Cases are pending against each of the writ petitioners and the respondents claims that is the only reason for which the rent receipts could not be granted to the petitioners and there is no other ground therefor. 10. Considering the settled principle of law that the creation of a Jamabandi do not create or extinguish title of a party and that State cannot refuse to take land revenue and grant receipt thereof from a person whose name stands recorded in the Jamabandi and the undisputed fact remains that the Jamabandi in the names of the writ petitioners stands recorded in respect of the lands as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of the Judgment, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 to dispose of the respective Suspicious Jamabandi Cancellation 13 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases Cases within twelve weeks from the date of production/receipt of this order and unless and until, the said Jamabandi are cancelled within such twelve weeks, the respondents are directed to take land revenue from the writ petitioners in respect of the lands as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of the Judgment and to grant receipt of the same. 11. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th May, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- 14 W.P.(C). No.6136 of 2016 With Other Analogous Cases