Kumkum Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4980 Jhar

                                              1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P.(C) No. 4967 of 2019
          Kumkum Devi                                             ...      ...         Petitioner
                                              Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms,
             Government of Jharkhand
          3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag
          4. The Additional Collector, Hazaribag
          5. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribag
          6. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribag ....   ...    Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anish Mishra, A.C. to G.A.-I Order No. 05 Dated: 22.12.2021 The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, "the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribag" is permitted to be impleaded as respondent no. 6 in the present writ petition.

3. Considering the current pandemic situation, office is directed to make necessary insertion, as stated above, in the cause title of the writ petition.

4. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entries made in remarks column of land possession certificate no. 2143 dated 12.08.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribag (the respondent no. 5) to the extent of giving history of the land as per the survey khatiyan.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was totally unnecessary for the respondent no. 5 to mention "history of land/chain of title" in the land possession certificate. In fact, the petitioner purchased the land from one Rukmani Devi wife of Late Badhan Sao whereas Late Badhan Sao had purchased the land from the vendor Md. Salamul Haq who had confirmed his title in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 160 of 1963 (Dwarika Ram Dusadh Vs. Md. Salamul Haq).

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to represent the respondent no. 6 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 6, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/her representative, shall take appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the said representation.

7. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

Ritesh/                                                        (Rajesh Shankar, J.)