Madhu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 567 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 6255 of 2012
                              ........

Madhu Mahto                                      ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others                     ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
                (Through : Video Conferencing)
                                 ............
For the Petitioner               : Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondents/State        : Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G.A.-II
                                  ..........
10/21.02.2022.
       Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Nitish Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original writ petition has been filed by Madhu Mahto, who has been substituted by the legal heirs namely, 1(a) Dhrub Chandra, S/o Late Madhu Mahto 1(b) Arun Kumar Mahto, S/o Late Madhu Mahto 1(c) Pradeep Kumar, S/o Late Madhu Mahto 1(d) Dilip Kumar, S/o Late Madhu Mahto, All, resident of Village- Pundag, P.O.-Pundag, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

The originally petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 09.10.2012 for quashing of order dated 16.10.2006, passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No.145/2002-03 / 26 /2005-06, being A.C.T.R. No.24/2005-06, whereby the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi has recommended before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi with regard to Khata No.383, Plot No.443, Area 2.86 acres and 492, Area-1 acre, which has been stopped since 1984 to cancel the jamabandi running in favour of the petitioner.

Mr. Nitish Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that by way of Sada Hukumnama dated 10.04.1948, the ex- landlord had settled the land in favour of the original writ petitioner under R.S. Khata No.383, Plot No.443, Area 2.86 acres, out of 8.85 acres and Plot No.492, Area-1 acre, out of 99.00 acres of Village- Pundag, District- Ranchi. After the settlement was made, the ex-landlord issued rent receipt, which has been brought on record for the year 1948, 1949, 1950, 1953 and 1956 by way of Annexure-2.

After vesting of the estate, thus the State of Bihar has also recognised original writ petitioner- Madhu Mahto as raiyat vide Mutation Case No.06/1956-57 and the rent receipts have been issued, which have been brought on record as Annexure-3 series. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi has initiated a Miscellaneous Case No.145/2002-03 / 26/2005-06 declaring such jamabandi to be suspicious without any reason.

Mr. Nitish Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that this Court has considered several judgments passed by the Apex Court and this Court has also passed order, that how jamabandi relating to these lands have been considered to be suspicious.

Mr. Nitish Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that once a jamabandi is running in the name of a person, the State authority cannot cancel the same without proper and valid reason. This Court has already held the same in the judgment passed by Division Bench in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Chancla Devi and The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Dineshwar Prasad in L.P.A. Nos.142 of 2010 and 307 of 2009 and also in 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, as such, the writ petition may be allowed.

Mr. Nitish Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6802/2011 (Shubhan Ansari & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others) has held as under:-

" The impugned order annexure-7 to the writ petition only mentions that direction has been received for staying the issuance of receipt in respect of khata no.383. Evidently no inquiry has been conducted, not even the petitioners have been afforded any opportunity of hearing as well as there is no order of the State Government to substantiate that any valid order from a competent authority is on record. On the

contrary authorities have passed a short and cryptic order without applying their mind on the basis that the land in question is Gair Mazarua khas. Obviously it is not a case that the land is Gair Mazarua Aam and belong to the public or used for any public purpose."

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G.A.-II has submitted that on the basis of report submitted by Halka Karmchari and Circle Inspector the proceeding has been initiated as they found it to be suspicious, as the same has not been passed by a competent authority.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G.A.-II has further submitted that transfer was made by Sada Hukumnama. He has submitted that detail of correction slip is not there nor detail of revenue record has been given by the petitioner, that how this land has been mutated in the name of the petitioner in Revenue Mutation Case No.06/1956-57, as such, it seems to be suspicious.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. P. A.S. Pati, G.A.-II has further submitted that as per the report submitted by the Halka Karmchari, the petitioner is not on the spot and thus he has submitted that it is suspicious jamabandi opened without order of competent authority.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nitish Krishna and learned counsel for the State, Mr. P. A.S. Pati, G.A.-II and perused the materials brought on record. It appears that on 10.04.1948, a Sada Hukumnama was granted by ex-landlord in favour of original writ petitioner, Madhu Mahto, which has been brought on record as Annexure-

1. Since the settlement made by the ex-landlord in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was recognized by the ex-landlord and rent receipts have been issued with respect to the year 1948, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1956, which has been brought on record as Annexue-2 series. After vesting of land in the State of Bihar, the rent receipts have been issued in favour of Madhu Mahto by Circle Officer, Ratu vide Mutation Case No.06/1956-57. The rent receipts have been brought on record as Annexure-3 series. It is surprising for this Court that a Halka Karmchari submitted a report before the Circle Officer, Ratu, that this is a suspicious jamabandi as the same has not been issued by a competent authority and on such basis the Circle Officer, Ratu has not issued the subsequent rent receipts considering it to be a suspicious jamabandi opened by an officer, who was not competent.

This Court has deprecated such act of Halka Karmchari in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Chancla Devi and The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Dineshwar Prasad in L.P.A. Nos.142 of 2010 and 307 of 2009 where much has been said about the report submitted by Halka Karmchari. The relevant part of judgment at Para-10 (f), (g) and (h) be quoted hereunder:-

"(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 6 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."

It is not a case of State Authority that from perusal of the record of Mutation Case No.06/1956-57, it appears that name of different person, different plot numbers, different Khata or different thing are recorded, rather the Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi has admitted in case of Smt. Surjee Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.3351/ 2008 that there is no record maintained with regard to the Government land in Ratu Circle, but the Halka Karmchari are acting like a master for the revenue department being a non Gazetted Officer. On the basis of such report of Halka Karmchari, the revenue department built their citadel

ignoring the earlier Mutation order passed by the Circle Officer, vide Mutation Case No.06/1956-57. The respondents/State has not alleged that the signature of the then Circle Officer, Ratu is fake. The report of such Halka Karmchari has been relied upon by the superior authority, whereby order passed by previous Circle Officers has been doubted.

It is not the case that State has brought the record of Mutation Case No.06/1956-57 to show before this Court that this was a forged document. It is not the case of the State that they have lodged any F.I.R. or they have said anything with regard to the Officers. A new plea has been taken by the State counsel that the rent receipts never shows the Mutation Case number or the name of the raiyat.

This Court is surprised to hear such submissions by the State counsel. This Court has experience of seeing so many rent receipts and in none of the rent receipts the mutation case is mentioned, the name of raiyat is mentioned, the name of plot numbers, Khata numbers, Thana number and district are mentioned, but such pleas are being taken by the State counsel without any basis on instruction of the Circle Officer. It is not the case of State authorities that certified copy of the mutation case are being given, rather the order-sheet of certified copies are being given. This shows that State counsels are not briefed up properly by the State authorities and they are asking the State counsels to argue on their statement made in the counter-affidavit, which has no legal sanctity.

From perusal of the entire records, it appears that once a jamabandi is running pursuant to Mutation Case No.06/1956-57 and the rent receipts were being issued, the State authorities have no right to stop the same in view of the judgment in the case of Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1119/2006 affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.474/2006 and the same has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Cvl.) No.8279/2009 vide order dated 11.05.2009 and W.P.(C) No.644/2016 (Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo @ Damodar Nath Shahdeo Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others), W.P.(C) No. 2783/2017 (Anpurna Devi @ Annapurna Devi & Another Vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Others) and W.P.(C) No.3581/2017 (Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others), which has been allowed by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 03.07.2018 and W.P.(C) No.6802/2011 (Shubhan Ansari & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others).

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/