Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Sriram Pratap Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2021
Dr. Sriram Pratap Sinha ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
4. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III
-----
Order No. 02 Dated: 04.02.2021
The present writ petition is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the respondents, particularly the respondent no. 4 -
Circle Officer, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad to resume the issuance of
rent receipt in favour of the petitioner which has been stopped since
the year 2011 for the land appertaining to Mouza-Hirapur, P.S.-
Dhanbad, P.S. No.-7, Plot No. 3218, Khata No. 136, District-Dhanbad,
measuring an area of 5 Katthas. Further prayer has been made for
issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 - the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide the petitioner's representation
wherein he has described the entire litigation history of the land for
taking appropriate decision by the said authority.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one
Sri Rama Prasad Singh along with subsequent purchasers of the land
filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 854 of 1982(R) before the
Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) against the order of the Additional
Collector, Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner passed under
Section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The High court vide order
dated 10.04.1989 disposed of the writ petition declaring the
impugned orders passed by the said authorities as illegal and
accordingly, those orders were quashed. The respondent authorities,
however, did not challenge the said order of the High Court and thus,
the same became final and binding on the parties.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the land in question was thereafter purchased by one Smt. Gayatri
Devi vide sale deed no. 2001 dated 25.03.1987 and her name was
mutated vide Mutation Case No. 336(ii)/1992-93. The petitioner
purchased the said land from Smt. Gayatri Devi vide sale deed no.
1047 dated 14.02.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner came in peaceful
possession of the land and his name was mutated vide Mutation Case
No. 131(ii)/1993-94 by issuing correction slip dated 19.07.1993. The
Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad also issued holding number in the
name of the petitioner and his name was thereafter entered in
Register-II. The petitioner started paying rent and the rent receipts
were issued. Thereafter, in the year 2018, policy decision was taken
to undertake the process of accepting rents after conducting
appropriate enquiry. In this regard, the respondent no. 2 issued one
letter on 15.07.2020, addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners of
the State of Jharkhand stating that immediate and expeditious
process be undertaken to accept the rents from the land owners after
ascertaining the title and possession by making due enquiry. The
petitioner approached the respondent authorities, particularly the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 for taking appropriate decision on the basis
of the available documents specifically the judgment passed by this
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 854 of 1982(R). The learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that long standing possession cannot be
questioned, once the matter has been settled by this Court.
4. Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III appearing on behalf of
the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh
representation before the respondent no. 4 on the present issue, an
appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the said
authority.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
keeping in view the nature of prayer made in the writ petition,
without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given
liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4
on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the
respondent no. 4 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner/his representative and on verifying the relevant records,
shall take an informed decision in this regard within a period of three
months from the date of filing of the representation.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid
liberty and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
