Basudeo Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 274 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                             W.P.(C) No. 5304 of 2008
       Basudeo Pandit                                                  .... .. ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                                   .. ... ... Respondents
                                      ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) .........

       For the Petitioner                     : None
       For the resp.-State                    : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Sr. S.C. III
                                      ......
06/ 04.02.2022.
                Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Petitioner- Basudeo Pandit has preferred the writ petition quashing the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Collector, Giridih, in Misc. Appeal / Revision Case No.04 of 2006-07 affirming the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih in Misc. Case No.15 of 2004-05 and Land Ceiling Revision Case No.270 of 2005-06 whereby and whereunder the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih cancelled the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of petitioner without following the procedure of law.

It appears to this Court on the basis of submission made by the petitioner in the writ petition that it is quite strange that how such order is being passed by the authority concerned without showing any element of fraud only on the ground that Register-II has not been signed properly by the competent authority. The Jamabandi has been created in 1974-75 without any order of the competent authority and there is interpolation by penned in the Register- II.

This Court on the basis of submission made by the petitioner, in the writ petition, opined that the Register- II is the property of the Circle Officer and if a competent authority i.e. the Circle Officer is not signing the petitioner cannot be liable or held guilty. The Supervisory Authorities having power of supervision under the law, i.e. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, the Additional Collector and the Deputy Commissioner of the District are responsible for making inspection and making necessary correction, but cannot raise any question with regard to the contents or the signature contained in the above said register, as such, such allegation has been put by the Circle Officer is absolutely not sustainable as the same is lacking the element of fraud.

So far the allegation that it has been penned down in Registrar- II, the Circle

Officer has never lodged any case regarding interpolation in the official record as the official record is always property in the custody of the Circle Officer, as such, long stand jamabandi, which was standing in the name of the petitioner and their ancestor cannot be cancelled in such summary proceeding, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Izhar Hussain in SLP (C) No.8108 of 2021, wherein the Apex Court dismissed the SLP arising out of LPA No.786 of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 05.11.2020, wherein the order challenged by the State has been dismissed arising from W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 in Izhar Hussain vs. State of Jharkhand whereby the co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court under the writ jurisdiction allowed the petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. Sandeep Verma, Sr. SC-III has submitted, that it is true that element of fraud has not been pointed by the Circle Officer in his counter-affidavit dated 27.07.2009. However, he submits that he will seek instruction from the Circle Officer and file a supplementary counter- affidavit, if so requires.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that notice is to be issued upon the private-respondent on whose application such proceeding has been initiated by the Circle Officer and the impugned order has been passed, which is assailed before this Court in writ jurisdiction.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, let notice be issued to respondent no.5- Khirandra Das, S/o Akal Rabidas, respondent no.6- Tulsi Das, S/o Prabhu Rabidas, respondent no.7- Budhan Das, S/o Gujar Das, respondent no.8- Mani Das, S/o Puran Das, all R/o Village - Khurjio, P.S.- Birni, District- Giridih under both process i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of two weeks.

Put up this case after service of notice.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.