Parwal Mahto & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 292 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W.P.(C) No. 3553 of 2012
       Parwal Mahto & Ors.                                      .... .. ... Petitioners
                                  Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                            .. ... ... Respondents
                                    ...........

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

       For the Petitioners                  : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate
       For the respondent- State            : Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I.
                                    ......
16/ 07.02.2022.
               Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Laxman Kumar has submitted that petitioners, namely, Parwal Mahto, Jagan Mahto and Hulash Mahto have preferred the writ petition for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures- 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition as well as notice vide Letter No.512 dated 06.06.2012 as contained in Annexure- 8 to the writ petition, issued by the Circle Officer, Gobindpur, District- Dhanbad, whereby the Circle Officer, Gobindpur has informed the petitioners that in Misc. Case No.3 of 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide order dated 13.03.2012 has cancelled the jamabandi No.18 of Mansu Mahto, S/o Chaitu Mahto with respect of land of Mouza- Manjhiladih, Thana No.59, Khata no.17 Plot No.209, area 0.62 acre and directed to take the said land in Government possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5, duly sworn by Anil Kumar, S/o Sri Janardan Ram being the Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad, has been filed on dated 13.07.2017, wherein peculiar stand has been taken at paras 6 and 7, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"6.That it is stated that the present writ application has been filed by the petitioners prays for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures-4, 5, 6 and 7and notice vide Letter No.512 dated 06.06.2012 as contained in Annexure- 8 issued by the Circle Officer, Govindpur, District Dhanbad.

For issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition for restraining the respondents or its machineries from acting in pursuant to orders as contained in Annexure- 8, taking into consideration that the land measuring an area of 64 decimals situated on Plot No. 209, Khata No.17 of Mouza Manjhiladih, P.S. No. 59 Govindpur Baarwadda, District Dhanbad was settled with the father of the petitioners by the Jharia Raj Estate in the year 1928 and the petitioners father came into possession and had perfected his right, title and interest on payment of rent to the concerned authorities for more than 70 years.

7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the respondent would like to submit that after holding enquiry in presence of the petitioner it has been established that the Jamabandi No.18 has been created without any competent order and accordingly the said Jamabandi has been cancelled vide order dated 13.03.2012 of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and the petitioner has come up before this Hon'ble Court with the instant writ petition whereas the Hon'ble court has been pleased to decide vide judgment dated 25.06.2009 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.777 of 2009 that such matter can be

challenged only before statutory forum of appeal and Court is not competent to decide the controversy relating to the running of Jamabandi."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that the order of the W.P. (PIL) No.777 of 2009 has wrongly been interpreted by the Circle Officer. The land, in question has been settled to the father of the petitioners by the Jharia Raj Estate in the year, 1928 and as such, father of the petitioners came into possession and had perfected his right, title and interest on payment of rent to the concerned authorities for last more than 70 years, but the cancellation has only been made on the ground that it is outcome of forgery and that too was detected after 70 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that this Court in terms of order dated 17.11.2021 has directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand to file affidavit before this Court. Thereafter supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department on 21.12.2021 paras 7 to 13 may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"7.That it is humbly stated and submitted that a report with regard to the aforesaid observation has been submitted by the then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide memo No.1457 dated 27.04.2012 issued by the then Additional Collector, Dhanbad and vide Memo No.395 dated 30.04.2012 issued by the then Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad. The aforesaid statement has been submitted for approval at the Government level.

8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the statement of fact submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad reveals that the Jamabandi was created without any order and signature of competent authority and as such the jamabandi in question was found to have been created fraudulently in collusion with Halka Karamchari, and as such the same was order to be cancelled.

9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad had also ordered for lodging an F.I.R. against those persons who tried to grab the Government land and also ordered to identify the persons responsible for fraudulently created jamabandi and issued rent receipt.

10.That it is humbly stated and submitted that one Rajendra Prasad Singh the then Halka Karmchari has been identified who collusively and fraudulently created jamabandi and issued rent receipt.

11.That it is humbly stated and submitted that it has further been reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that Rajendra Prasad Singh has already retired from his service and also said to have died on 01.03.2021.

12.That it is humbly stated and submitted that it would be evident from the aforementioned fact that the jamabandi was created without any valid order and signature of competent authority and hence it was cancelled and since the erring officer, Rajendra Prasad Singh has already retired and also died hence no action is required to be taken.

13.That it is humbly stated and submitted that the issuance of rent receipt is within the jurisdiction of Halka Karamchari and as such having no role of Circle Officer, in issuance of rent receipt as such he cannot be held responsible for the same."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that this counter-affidavit has been filed without annexing any document to substantiate the same rather it is only on the basis of statement made before the

Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, as no document has been annexed. Such affidavit seems to be evasive affidavit filed by State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kuamr has further submitted that such reply is being filed just to strengthen their illegal act, which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Izhar Hussain in SLP (C) No.8108 of 2021, whereby the Apex Court has 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 wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court under the writ jurisdiction has allowed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kuamr has further submitted the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Chanchala Devi, (LPA No.307/2009) reported in 2018 1 JBCJ 584; 2018 2 JCR 486 has taken note of the misleading act of halka karamchari while dismissing the LPA of the State at para 10 (f), (g) and (h), which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"10. Counsel for the State has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Bihar and Others vs. Labendra Chand Bothra, 1995 (2) PLJR 21 (SC). Looking to the facts of the present case, the ratio decidendi propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Remarkably, different facts of the present case are as under:-

(f) These entries have also been continued for several years and abruptly in the year 2002, Halka Karamchari, who is lowest in the rank of Revenue Offices, has made a remark that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik land from the year 1942.

(g) Thus, after 60 long years, the wisest man, who is lowest in the rank, in the Revenue Offices of the State of Jharkhand wrote one line that the land in question is Gair Majaruwa Malik land and the high ranking Administrative Officers of the Revenue Department build a castle upon it, which has resulted into several revenue litigations and two writ petitions and two Letters Patent Appeals.

(h) Thus, it appears that the State Government is relying upon one line report given by the Halka Karamchari that land in question is a Government land. If this is the stand of the Government, the State Government can file a Civil Suit so that the title of the property can be decided or the ownership of the property can be decided by the competent trial Court. Ownership can always be decided by the civil Courts. There is a presumption in favour of the holder of the mutation entry, especially, when any mutation entry is much older in point of time."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that in this case petitioners are in possession over the land since 1928 till 2012 and to that effect the entry has been made. The entire record is under the custody of the Circle Officer, Govindpur, but to protect a Gazetted officer, a conspiracy has been hatched by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and Additional Collector, Dhanbad as well as by the Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad by

holding one halka karamchari, namely, Rajendra Prasad Singh, who died on 01.03.2021 as accused in the FIR without disclosing the no. of FIR and without disclosing that when this jamabandi was fraudulently created.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that nowhere they have said that the revenue records are in the custody of the petitioners or the halka karamchari , rather it is apparent that the Circle Officers are responsible for the such records and any interpolation, if made in the Register-II is the responsibility of a gazetted officer i.e. Circle Officer. A gazetted officer like Circle Officer cannot take shelter that a Revenue karamchari, who is Class-IV employee and lowest in rank of revenue office, is responsible for such fraudulent act and Circle Officers cannot save themselves by such statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that the Apex Court has already affirmed the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 [i.e Izhar Hussain vs. State of Jharkhand which has been affirmed in LPA No.786 of 2018 and again the SLP (C) No.8108 of 2021 has also been dismissed by the Apex Court affirming the order in terms of order passed in W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 dated 06.07.2021, as such, the Revenue Authority cannot cancel the long standing jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar has further submitted that this Hon'ble Court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand in terms of order dated 17.11.2021 to file an affidavit to the effect that, when signature or order on the official record cannot be made by the petitioners, he cannot be held responsible for the same, then what action has been taken against those officers, who were subsequently posted in the Circle Officer of Barwadda, Govindpur in the District of Dhanbad before cancellation of such long standing jamabandi of the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. Thereafter supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on 21.02.2021 and from perusal of the same, it appears that the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand has been misled by the District level Officers by taking such plea, though no such averment has been made with regard to the date of lodging the FIR and with regard to the query made by this Court, as such, this Court may consider the same.

However, Learned counsel for the petitioners, Laxman Kumar submits that he will verify as to whether any FIR has been lodged against the petitioners in the year, 2012 or not?

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the assistance provided by the learned State counsel is painful for this Court, as such, this Court directs the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand and Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to look into the matter.

Let the matter be placed on 15.02.2022 as the first case.

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand and Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand at once.

Office is directed to reflect the name of learned counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I in the cause-list in place of learned counsel, Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S