Dhani Ram Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4224 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 4705 of 2008
                         ........

Dhani Ram Manjhi                       ....   ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....   ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
           (Through : Video Conferencing)
                          ............
For the Petitioner            : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate.

For the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 : Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III.

........

03/17.11.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha and learned counsel for the respondent - State, Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Mrs.Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III.

The petitioner namely, Dhani Ram Manjhi has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Land Restoration Appeal bearing R.A. No. 10/2004, whereby and whereunder the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh has set aside the order dated 09.11.2004 passed by L.R.D.C., Hazaribagh and also for quashing the order dated 20.05.2008 passed by learned Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Revenue Revision No. 33/2006, whereby the order of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh dated 31.01.2006 passed in Land Restoration Appeal bearing R.A. No. 10/2004 has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority are bad in law and contrary to the findings recorded by learned L.R.D.C., Hazaribagh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order dated 09.11.2004 has been based upon the report submitted by the Circle Officer, which is apparent from order dated 04.11.2003 (Annexure-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted the proceeding has been initiated as the petitioner, being the legal heir of recorded tenant Dhani Ram Manjhi, has filed an application for issuance of rent receipt, which was wrongly recorded by the Halka

Karamchari as Land Return Case Number, as such, the learned courts below have passed wrong orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the Jamabandi, the name of the petitioner as well as the name of the ancestor of the respondent no. 4 have been recorded and the petitioner is the legal heir of the recorded tenant, as such, his name may be recorded and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority may be set aside affirming the order passed by the learned L.R.D.C., Hazaribagh.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Senior Standing Counsel-III has submitted, that the order of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh dated 31.01.2006 passed in Land Restoration Appeal bearing R.A. No. 10/2004 has taken note of all the facts and it was found that the land of Village - Sangarha, P.S. No. 45, Khata No. 42, Plot No. 633, 1009 and 1010, total area - 2.04 acres was recorded in the name of Rajni Mosomat, widow of Late Lakhan Manjhi. After death of the recorded tenant, the successors have not paid rent to the landlords and thus they surrendered the land with regard to Khata No. 42 and 79, Area-3.28 acres by a registered deed no. 871/848 on 19.02.1943. Thereafter the ex- landlord had settled this land of area 2.04 acres to the Jai Narayan Singh vide a Hukumnama of the year 1945. The Jai Narayan Singh, the ancestor of respondent no. 4, started paying rent to the ex- landlord and after vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar, the rent is being continuously paid to the State Government since 1955. The first rent receipt bearing No. 874594 has been issued on 09.12.1955 and till 2004-05, the rent receipts have been issued. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh has considered all these aspects of the matter and has set aside the order dated 09.01.2004 passed by the L.R.D.C., Hazaribagh in Appeal Case No. 01/2003-04 which has been affirmed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that so far the non-compliance of proceeding under Section 46 of the CNT Act is concerned, it is not an issue, as the surrender was made through

a registered deed on 19.02.1943 and subsequently settlement was made by the ex-landlord before vesting of estate in favour of the ancestor of respondent no. 4 namely, Jai Narayan Singh, as such, the impugned orders passed by both the courts below i.e. Additional Collector, Hazaribagh as well as Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh are based on consistent and relevant facts and that does not require any interference by this Court. However, for better appreciation, the Additional Collector has already given a liberty to the writ petitioner, who was appellant before the Additional Collector to agitate such issue before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, but instead of preferring the same, the writ petitioner has preferred revision application before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which has rightly been rejected by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh as such, the impugned order does not require interference by this Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below, it appears that this is one of the unique case in Jharkhand, where one jamabandi is standing in the name of two persons, that creates problem for Citizen of India in the State of Jharkhand. It appears from the record that the land of Village - Sangadha, P.S. No. 45, Khata No. 42, Plot Nos. 633, 1009, 1010, total area 2.04 acres was initially recorded in the name of Rajni Mosomat, wife of Late Lakhan Manjhi, but since they could not pay the rent to the ex-landlord, as such instead of paying rent, they have preferred to surrender the land to the ex-landlord by a registered deed of surrender bearing no. 871/848 dated 19.12.1943. This registered deed of surrender has not been assailed by the petitioner, rather pursuant to surrender, the ex-landlord has already settled this land to one Jai Narayan Singh, who is the ancestor of respondent no. 4 in the year 1945, by executing a Hukumnama and on the basis of that, the ancestor of respondent no. 4 Jai Narayan Singh paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar,

rent was paid to the State of Bihar vide First Rent Receipt No. 874594 dated 09.12.1955 till 2004-05 when this case was initiated, meaning thereby rent was paid before the vesting of the estate and after the vesting of the estate.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh as well as Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh does not require any interference by this Court, as these are based on facts, as such, writ petition is hereby dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail legal remedy available under the law by agitating the same before competent Civil Court.

Before parting with the judgment, this Court directs the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand to look into such matter, where one Jamabandi is running in the name of two persons having conflicting interest because of laches on part of the Halka Karamchari, Circle Inspector and Circle Officer of the Circle and the matters are not being supervised by Senior Revenue Authorities regularly.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand is directed to evolve a method so as to mention the name of previous landholder, previous rent receipt number, description of land and year for which rent receipt had been issued earlier while issuing rent receipt by the Halka Karamchari so that for one Jamabandi, two names of conflicting interest may not be recorded in revenue records. The same shall minimize the litigation.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand at once.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-