Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Jayaswal vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 13 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 6460 of 2005
........
Raj Kumar Jayaswal .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. P.C. Sinha, S.C. (L&C)-I.
........
07/13.09.2021.
Heard, learned senior counsel, Mr. R.N. Sahay, assisted by
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rabindra Prasad and learned
counsel for the Respondent-State, Mr. P.C. Sinha, S.C. (L&C)-I.
Petitioner has prayed before this Court for setting aside and
quash the order dated 09.04.2005 passed by Additional Collector,
Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 34/2004 on the ground of jurisdiction,
whereby the orders dated 01.09.2004, 06.09.2004 ad 05.10.2004
passed by learned Circle Officer, learned Land Reforms Deputy
Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad in Rent Fixation Case
No. 11/2003-4 have been set aside.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
Raj Kumar Jayaswal and Bishwanath Jayaswal, both sons of Late
Chhedi Lal Sao, resident of Kabari Patti, Naya Bazaar, Dhanbad
have prayed for mutation of land in Plot Nos. 3236 and 3237 in
Mouza - Dhanbad before Circle Officer on the basis of their
registered Partition Deed No. 7523 dated 21.05.1960 as well as on
the basis of document showing that one Title Suit No. 197/1935 was
filed before the court of learned Munsif, Dhanbad, but subsequently
withdrawn. On the basis of report of Revenue Karamchari and Circle
Inspector, Circle Officer, Dhanbad has found that it is matter of rent
fixation, rather mutation. Thereafter, Rent Fixation Case No.
11/2003-04 was instituted. After following procedure envisaged
under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of
Records) Act, 1973, the Circle Officer on the basis of report of
Revenue Karamchari and Circle Inspector has found that the land of
Area-7 kathas, 5 Chhataks, 40 sq. ft. in Mouza-Dhanbad, Thana No.
51, Nagar Palika, Plot Nos. 3236 & 3237, recorded in the name of
the petitioner's father, Late Chhedi Lal Sao, who got the land on the
basis of registered Partition Deed No. 7523 dated 21.05.1960 and
after death of Chhedi Lal Sao, his sons namely, Raj Kumar Jayaswal
and Bishwanath Jayaswal are in possession of the same.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that ex-landlord Raja Seo Prasad Singh had filed a case, against Ram
Lakhan Bhagat, who was the grandfather of the petitioner, vide Title
Suit No. 197/1935 and ultimately that suit was withdrawn in terms of
order dated 16.06.1936 as such, the land belongs to the petitioner and
there is no dispute regarding the title and petitioner is in possession,
for which rent fixation may be done, which has not been done by the
State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that
under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the order of Circle Officer is
appealable before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, but
inadvertently, the petitioner has preferred Misc. Appeal Case No.
34/2004 before the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, who has no
jurisdiction, as such, the impugned order passed by the Additional
Collector, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 34/2004 may be set aside
with direction and liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision
application under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 before the Collector.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I has
opposed the prayer and has submitted counter affidavit on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 to 5 duly signed by the Circle Officer has been
filed on 21.04.2006 and kept on record, from which it appears that
the Additional Collector after considering the entire material brought
into the evidence in Misc. Appeal No. 34/2004 has cancelled the
order of fixation of rent for both the plots aforementioned.
Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the
Collector may be directed to decide the case afresh on the basis of
materials brought on record.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that
petitioner has wrongly preferred Misc. Appeal before the Additional
Collector contrary to the law. Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's
Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 deals with the
Revision, which shall be filed before the Collector of the District and
after hearing the parties, the Collector shall pass an order. It is
relevant to mention here that order passed by the Additional
Collector is without jurisdiction in view of the judgment passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Dulari Devi Vs.
State of Bihar & Others reported in (2005) 2 PLJR 688 and in view
of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s Nagarjuna
Construction Company Limited, Ranchi Vrs. State of Jharkhand &
Another reported in (2010) 1 JLJR 474 (HC).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
09.04.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad in Misc.
Appeal No. 34/2004 is hereby set aside.
The petitioner is at liberty to prefer revision application under
Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records)
Act, 1973 before the Collector, who will dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
