Lakhanlal Mahto @ Narayan Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2467 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 1682 of 2020
                         ........

Lakhanlal Mahto @ Narayan Mahto .... ..... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents / State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II.

Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to AAG-II.

........

07/06.07.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Kumar has submitted, that deficit court fee of Rs. 10/- has already been paid and so far defect no. 1 is concerned, the same may be ignored for the present.

Considering the same and having gone through the defect no. 1, the same is ignored for the present.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Kumar and learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG- II assisted by learned A.C. to AAG-II, Mr. Gaurav Raj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Kumar has submitted, that petitioner Lakhanlal Mahto @ Narayan Mahto, son of Late Bilka Mahto @ Newaji Mahto and Paitri Mahatwain has preferred this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Rev. Misc. (Settlement) Revision No. 92/2011, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 03.09.1998 passed by the Settlement Charge Officer, Dumka in Note For Order No. 02/1998, whereby the Settlement Charge Officer, Dumka has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the fact of the case is that the petitioner was adopted by Paitri Mahatwain, widow of Bilka Mahto vide Adoption Deed No. 121 dated 31.01.1975. Subsequently, a Cancellation Deed was registered vide Cancellation Deed No. 220 dated 25.02.1975, whereby the said Adoption Deed No. 121 dated 31.01.1975 has been cancelled.

Thereafter, Paitri Mahatwain executed another Deed of Declaration No. 10/1989 confirming the Deed of Adoption No. 121 dated 31.01.1975 stating therein that the Cancellation Deed No. 220 dated 25.02.1975 was created by playing fraud upon her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the daughter of Paitri Mahatwain namely, Alkhi Mahatwain and Anpi Mahatwain filed Title Suit No. 71/1992 for declaration that the petitioner is not the adopted son of Paitri Mahatwain, but the said suit was dismissed and no appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the suit, as such the same attained finality.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that after the death of Paitri Mahatwain, the petitioner in the capacity of being her adopted son, filed application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Taskdik Camp, Kalyanraithari with a prayer to record his name in place of his adoptive mother and on that basis Badar No. 23 was registered. At the same time, Alkhi Mahatwain and Anpi Mahatwain have lodged another Badar No. 6 praying therein to not record name of petitioner and further Narsingh Mahato claimed entire land of the share of Sona Mahato, Dona Mahato and Bilka Mahato. Thereafter, Assistant Settlement Officer has sent the record to the Settlement Officer, Dumka vide order dated 04.07.1998 for considering the claim and counter claim of the parties.

Thereafter, the Settlement Officer, Dumka has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 03.09.1998 and allotted 1/2 share of land to Narsingh Mahato and another 1/2 share of land to the daughters of Paitri Mahatwain namely, Alkhi Mahatwain and Anpi Mahatwain, which was also affirmed by the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner has filed Original (T.D. And Partition) Suit before the court of Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka on 26.02.2020 for declaring the status of petitioner as legally and validly adopted son of Paritri Mahatwain and Bilka Mahato @ Newaji Mahto and also for declaring the share of petitioner to the extent of 1 / 4 share and interest in the suit property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that it was incumbent upon the Settlement Officer to consider the judgment passed by the competent court of law in Title Suit No. 71/1992.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II assisted by learned A.C. to AAG-II, Mr. Gaurav Raj has submitted, that respondent nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13 are contesting parties and they have appeared through learned counsels, Mrs. Sarita Gupta, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and M/s Akansha Mishra, but today they are not present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has further submitted, that petitioner has only arrayed Anpi Mahatawain, daughter of Paritri Mahatawain and Bilika Mahto @ Nawaji Mahto as respondent no. 3, but petitioner has not arrayed Alkhi Mahatwain as party respondent, though petitioner has brought Genealogical Table on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, where Alkhi Mahatwain, another daughter of Paritri Mahatwain has shown issueless without disclosing, whether she is alive or not?

Under the aforesaid circumstances, let notice be issued upon respondent no. 3, Anpi Mahatawain, daughter of Late Bilka Mahato @ Newaji Mahto, resident of Village - Bherwa Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.

- Madhupur District - Deoghar, respondent no. 4, Srikant Mahto and respondent no. 5, Ugan Mahto, both sons of Late Baleshwar Mahto, respondent no. 6, Indar Mahto and respondent no. 7, Bhim Mahto, both sons of Late Bhagat Mahto, respondent no. 8, Badri Mahto, son of Late Ketkaha Mahto and respondent no. 11, Prahlad Mahto, son of Baldeo Mahto, Respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 are resident of Village - Biyahi, P.O. - Pawe, P.S. - Sonaraithari, District

- Deoghar, under Speed Post, for which requisites etc. must be filed by 08.07.2022, as respondent nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13 have already appeared in this case.

Office to track the Speed Post.

Put up this case after service of notice under the appropriate heading.

However, respondent nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13 are directed to file counter-affidavit within two weeks.

Office is directed to delete the name of learned counsel, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan from the column of respondents by substituting the name of learned AAG-II, Mr. Sachin Kumar in the cause list.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-