The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023 1. Rudo Devi, w/o Sri Chandradeo Singh, aged about 52 years, r/o Village Pindarcone, P.O. & P.S. Gidaur, Dist. Chatra 2. Most. Baby Devi, w/o Late Manoj Singh, aged about 31 years, r/o 3. Village Chainpur, P.O. & P.S. Rajpur, Dist. Chatra Rambriksh Prasad Yadav, s/o Sri Sukar Yadav, aged about 38 years, r/o Village Kurkutta, P.O. & P.S. Gidaur, Dist. Chatra 4. Om Prakash Verma, s/o Sri Jai Prakash Dangi, aged about 40 years Ram Prakash Verma, s/o Sri Jai Prakash Dangi, aged about 37 years 5. Nos. 4 & 5 r/o Village Unta, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Chatra … Petitioners -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Chatra 3. District Sub-Registrar, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Chatra 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra, North Forest Division, P.O., P.S. & … Respondents Dist. Chatra -----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I ----- 06/18.09.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will not rely on the pages which have been demanded by the office as typed copies. 2. In view of his such submission, the prayer made in I.A. No.8256 of 2024 is allowed. 3. 4.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No.8256 of 2024 is disposed of. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the State. 5. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing the Circular No.930, dated 21.09.2016 issued under the signature of the Secretary, -1- W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023 Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, whereby, in utter disregard and defiance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2016 (10) SCC 795, the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.2) has given the authority to the Deputy Commissioners to cancel sale deed which appears to be registered on the basis of false documents or by playing fraud or impersonation, which comes only within the domain of Civil Court. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 17.03.2023 (signed on 20.05.2023) passed in Sale Deed Cancellation Case No.34/2021-22 by which respondent no.2 has cancelled the Sale Deed Nos.2856/2021 and 2858/2021 without any jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands including those situated in Village Bhaipur, Pargana Ahuri, P.S. Chatra, P.S. No.119, Tauji No.28, Hal Khewat No.1 under Khata No.18, Plot No.173, Area 4.60 acres is recorded in the name of Ramgulel Singh. The same is duly reflected in the Khatian as also the Online Khatian, contained in Annexure-1 series. He further submits that Ramgulel Singh came in ownership and possession of the aforesaid lands and his name is duly mutated in Register-II and is paying rent to the Government, contained in Annexure-2 series. He also submits that Ramgulel Singh died leaving behind two sons- Tilakdhari Singh and Dasrath Singh and both jointly inherited the aforesaid property and came in ownership and possession thereof and rent was paid -2- W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023 in the name of Ramgulel Singh. Tilakdhari Singh came in ownership and possession of 2.30 acres of the aforesaid land. He then submits that Tilakdhari Singh died leaving behind three daughters- Rudo Devi, Rupa Devi and Sita Devi. He submits that the descendants of Dasrath Singh sold part of the aforesaid land of 40 decimals to Kashi Bhuiyan vide registered Sale Deed No.6257 dated 14.12.2004. Kashi Bhuiyan sold 4 decimals of land to Arvind Kumar Pandey vide Sale Deed No.4579 dated 11.07.2007. Kashi Bhuiyan sold further 12 decimals of land to Smt. Savitri Devi vide Sale Deed No.5040, dated 30.07.2007. He further submits that Khata No.18 comprises of three plots i.e. Plot Nos.148, 149 and 173, total area 6 acres 29 decimals, out of which, purchase of 12 decimals of land got his name mutated in the concerned Register-II and accordingly mutation is still running in the name of Ramgulel Singh for 6 aces 17 decimals of land. He then submits that in exercise of their right of ownership and possession of lands, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 sold part of their lands i.e. 24 decimals of land to petitioner no.3 vide Sale Deed No.2856, which was presented for registration on 04.10.2021 and the same was duly executed and registered by respondent no.3 on 05.10.2021, contained in Annexure-4. He submits that petitioner no.2 also sold 76 decimals of land to petitioner nos. 4 and 5 vide Sale Deed No.2858, which was presented for registration on 04.10.2021 and the same was duly executed and registered by respondent no.3 on 05.10.2021, contained in Annexure-5. He submits that suddenly the petitioners received notice of initiation of Sale Deed Cancellation Case No.34/2021-2022 from the office of respondent no.2, thereafter, the petitioners enquired the -3- W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023 matter, wherein, it was informed that the aforesaid Sale Deed Nos.2856/2021 and 2858/2021 have been registered on the basis of letter dated 07.09.2021 given by respondent no.4 to respondent no.3 and on enquiry, it was revealed that the said letter dated 07.09.2021 is a forged letter. He submits that all the exercise for cancellation of sale deed was done by respondent no.2, who is having no jurisdiction. He submits that once the sale deed is executed, only the competent Civil Court can pass any appropriate order and it is well settled. He refers the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3103 of 2020 and analogous cases, whereby, the Circular which is under challenge in this writ petition, has already been quashed and consequential action with regard to cancellation of sale deed is also quashed. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the said judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is allegation of forging of letter and in view of that, FIR has also been registered against the petitioners. He submits that the land in question is forest land, however, he does not dispute that the said Circular is already quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that so far as the power of cancellation of sale deed is concerned, that is already set at rest in view of the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. 8. In view of the above, it transpires that the case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the above judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. -4- W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023 9. Once the Circular is being issued by the Government, it is required to be issued in light of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India, as it is not in the name of the Governor, but under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and considering all these aspects, the Coordinate Bench has decided the aforesaid writ petitions. 10. As such, the order dated 17.03.2023 (signed on 20.05.2023) passed in Sale Deed Cancellation Case No.34/2021-22, contained in Annexure-6, by which, respondent no.2 has cancelled the Sale Deed Nos.2856/2021 and 2858/2021 is, hereby, quashed. So far as the Circular No. 930, dated 21.09.2016 contained in Annexure-7 is concerned, that has already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -5- W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023