Jharkhand High Court
Sudhu Kumhar Mahto @ Sudhu Kumhar & ... vs State Of Jharkhand & Others on 15 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 477 of 2009
........
Sudhu Kumhar Mahto @ Sudhu Kumhar & Others
.... ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (C) No. 6202 of 2009
........
Sudhu Kumhar Mahto @ Sudhu Kumhar & Others
.... ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (C) No. 6263 of 2009
........
Sudhu Kumhar Mahto @ Sudhu Kumhar & Others
.... ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate.
[In all cases].
For the Respondent/State: Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I.
[In W.P. (C) No. 477/2009 & 6202/2009]
Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C. to
Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V.
For the Resp. Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Jageshwar Mahto, Advocate.
[In W.P. (C) No. 477/2009 & 6202/2009]
........
12/15.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet
Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I
and Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C. to Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V.
In W.P. (C) No. 477/2009, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing the order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Circle Officer,
Kanke, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 370 R 27 of 2005 - 06,
whereby the learned Circle Officer without properly considering the
factum of possession and semblance of title over the lands measuring
an area of 21 ½ decimals out of plot no. 173 of khata no. 63 situated
at Village - Getalatu, P.S. - Sadar, District - Ranchi passed an order
for mutating the name of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and for
quashing the order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Additional
Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 16 R 15 of 2008-09, by
which the learned Additional Collector has illegally allowed the
Revision filed by the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and set aside the order
passed by the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 94 R
15 of 2007-08.
In W.P. (C) No. 6202/2009, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing the order dated 23.05.2007 passed by the Circle Officer,
Kanke, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 371 R 27 of 2005 - 06,
whereby the learned Circle Officer without properly considering the
factum of possession and semblance of title over the lands measuring
an area of 21 ½ decimals out of plot no. 173 of khata no. 63 situated
at Village - Getalatu, P.S. - Sadar, District - Ranchi passed an order
for mutating the name of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and for
quashing the order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Additional
Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 17 R 15 of 2008-09, by
which the learned Additional Collector has illegally allowed the
Revision filed by the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and set aside the order
passed by the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 93 R
15 of 2007-08.
In W.P. (C) No. 6263/2009, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing the order dated 23.05.2007 passed by the Circle Officer,
Kanke, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 366 R 27 of 2007 - 08, whereby
the learned Circle Officer without properly considering the factum of
possession and semblance of title over the lands measuring an area of
35 decimals out of plot no. 173 of khata no. 63 situated at Village -
Getalatu, P.S. - Sadar, District - Ranchi passed an order for mutating
the name of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and for quashing the order
dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in
Mutation Revision No. 18 R 15 of 2008-09, by which the learned
Additional Collector has illegally allowed the Revision filed by the
respondent nos. 5 & 6 and set aside the order passed by the D.C.L.R.,
Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 92 R 15 of 2007-08.
Common questions involved in these writ petitions is that
whether under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, Additional Collector has power
or not or impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector is
without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet
Kumar has placed Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, which reads as under:-
"16. Revision. - The Collector of the district may, on the application
made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to
the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules
made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the
record of any case pending before or dispose of by such authority or
officer and pass such order as he thinks fit :
Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application
from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty
days from the date of the order;
Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting-
aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the
Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Kusum Devi Vs.
State of Bihar passed in L.P.A. No. 979/2011, Sheoraj Yadav @
Sheoraj Singh Yadav & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others passed
in L.P.A. No. 972/2010, in the case of Dulari Devi Vs. State of
Bihar & Others reported in (2005) 2 PLJR 688 and judgment of this
Court passed in the case of Rajeshwari Devi Vs. The State of
Jharkhand reported in (2015) 3 JCR 343 and the judgment passed
in the case of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited,
Ranchi Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 1
JLJR 474 (HC) and also on the analogous case of Lakhan Lal Sah
Vs. State of Bihar & Others passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11988/2010 and
has submitted that this proposition has been considered by this
Court, as such, the impugned order may be set aside and respondent
may be directed to prefer revision application before the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I and
Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C. to Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V have
submitted that the matter may be disposed of directing the
respondent nos. 5 & 6 to file revision application before the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, which will be decided by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi himself, instead of sending the same
to the court of Additional Collector, Ranchi unless and until there is
notification issued by the Government that such power of the Deputy
Collector is delegated to the Additional Collector, Ranchi too.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6, Mr. Jageshwar
Mahto has submitted that liberty may be granted to prefer revision
application before the Deputy Commissioner, and Deputy
Commissioner may be directed to decide the matters, as early as
possible these matters arises out of mutation proceeding (s).
Considering the same, the writ petitions are hereby disposed
of. Impugned order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Additional
Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 16 R-15/08-09, Mutation
Revision No. 17 R-15/08-09 and Mutation Revision No. 18 R-15/08-
09 is hereby set aside.
However, liberty is given to the respondent nos. 5 & 6 to file
revision application before the competent court of law under Section
16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act,
1973.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
