Mahabir Kansi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2364 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
                              LPA No. 340 of 2008
Mahabir Kansi, son of Sri Bharthu Kansi, Secretary, Jai Sahkari Bhawani Grih
Nirman Saminti, Hinoo, PS-Doranda, Ranchi                       ......Appellant
                                    Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The SDO, Jharkhand, Ranchi                             ..... Respondents
                            ---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
                    Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State     : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II
                    Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, AC to SC (L&C)-II
                             ---------------
                                ORDER

30th June 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant who was the writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 07th August 2008 passed in WP(C) No. 4491 of 2002 by which challenge made by him to the order dated 13 th January 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 254 of 1998 was rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant claimed right, title and interest with respect to 49 decimals land in Plot No. 2983 comprised under R.S. Khata No. 268 at Mauza-Argora. It is stated that 1.8 acres land appertaining to the aforesaid Plot No. 2983 was settled by virtue of Sada Hukumnama dated 22 nd March 1942 executed by Maharaja of Ratugarh on receipt of Salami of Rs. 549/- from Samu Sahu. The appellant pleaded that the settlee paid rent of Rs. 14/- and continued to pay rent also after vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar. After death of the settlee, Chandan Sahu who was his son came in possession of the aforesaid land and in the year 1989 sold the aforesaid piece of land to the appellant through registered deed of sale dated 30 th March 1989 for sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It appears that an enquiry was conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer on instructions of the Additional Collector into genuineness of entry in Register-II and by an order dated 06 th April 1997 Jamabandi running in the name of the appellant was cancelled.

3. As noticed above, the appeal preferred by the appellant vide Misc. Appeal No. 254 of 1998 was dismissed.

4. The stand taken by the State of Jharkhand before the writ Court is recorded in the order dated 7 th August 2008 passed in WP(C) No. 4491 of 2002, as under:

"4. The respondents in the counter affidavit have submitted that the disputed land was recorded as Gairmazarua Malik Parti Kadim in the revisional survey records of right and in view of the claim/demand for an area of 49 Decimals of the land, in question, a proceeding was initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide Misc. Case No. 27 of 1996-97 to examine the genuineness of the demand in respect of the land, in question, created in the name of said person in Register-II of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi. The respondents submit that the land, in question, is Gairmazarua Malik land of the Government and the demand of the land, in question, was created to grab the valuable land in collusion of the Government officials and under the above mentioned facts and circumstances the demand of the disputed land, recorded in the name of the petitioner in Register-II of the Circle Officer, Ranchi, was cancelled by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide its impugned order dated 06.04.1997. It has further been submitted that five Revenue Appeals were preferred before the Deputy Commissioner and the facts, involved in all the appeals, were same and the learned Deputy Commissioner after hearing all the aforesaid appeals together passed a common order dated 13.01.1999, rejecting the appeals. The appellant authority specifically held that the land, in question, is Gairmazarua Malik land as recorded in the records of right and after vesting of Jamindari, the entire Gairmazarua land vested in the State Government under Sections 3 and 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the State Government is deemed to be in possession by way of its statutory right and no one had the legal or vested right to settle this land after vesting of Jamindari. It is further submitted that in case the land of Gairmazarua khata have been settled prior to 1956 then the Ex. Landlord would have submitted the return of the land to the State Government, in which the name of the settlee would have been recorded as raiyat in respect of the land and after vesting of Jamindari, the State Government would have entered the name of said raiyat in Register-II and granted rent receipt thereof to the raiyat and the name of the raiyat would have been recorded in the Tenants Khatiyan and Tenants Ledger Register, prepared according to section 3 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Rent) Act, which is not the case herein. It has also been submitted that the vendors of the petitioner as raiyat have neither filed copy of the return (M-Form) nor the rent receipt from 1956 to 1983 to prove their claim. The respondents have further submitted that the Jambandi produced by the petitioner was examined and found to be fake and forged.

5. In the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, it has been specifically stated that the present land, in question, has been enlisted in the land scam of Ranchi District being Complaint No. 02 of Village-Argora and a criminal case regarding manipulation and forgery of documents along with the interference with the government records in connivance with the revenue officials has been lodged against the writ petitioner Mahabir Kanshi being RC Case No. 20 of 2000, which is sub-judice before the vigilance court, Ranchi. It is further submitted by the respondents that a criminal case has also been lodged against the delinquent revenue officials, which has been registered as Vigilance PS Case No. 33 of 2002, and the same is sub-judice before the court of Vigilance and the charges against the

delinquent revenue officials have already been framed for initiation of departmental proceedings against them and the same has been sent to the competent authority."

5. The appellant has raised two fold contentions that (i) powers under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 cannot be exercised in respect of transactions made before 1 st January 1946 and (ii) allegation of forgery in respect to entry in Register-II is wiped out by virtue of judgment in Cr. M.P No. 709 of 2014.

6. At the outset, we may indicate that Vigilance Case No. 33 of 2002 corresponding to Special Case No. 38 of 2002 was lodged for commission of offence under sections 420/423/424/467/468/469/471/477/201/120B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the proceeding of Cr. M.P No. 709 of 2014, the Court recorded that being Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society the accused who is appellant before us purchased the land from Chandan Sahu whose name was recorded in Register-II and by virtue of such transfer the accused got mutation in the name of his Society. Referring to the judgment in "Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar" (2009) 8 SCC 751 which held that the condition precedent for commission of an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that no offence was made out against the accused and, accordingly, Criminal prosecution against him was quashed.

7. The learned Single Judge held as under:

"Thus, it has been categorically held that when a document is executed by a person claiming a property though it is not his property but when he is not claiming that he is authorized by someone else or he is someone else, execution of such document cannot be said to be a false document in terms of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code and it is not a false document, then the question of committing an offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 does not arise.

The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case equally applies in this case as the transferor, who always claimed the properties as his own, can never be said to have committed offence of forgery by transferring the land through sale deed to different persons including the petitioner in whose names land was mutated and thereby the question of committing offence of forgery by this petitioner never arises.

Going further in the matter, one can hardly conceive as to how offence under Sections 423 and 424 of IPC is made out when there has been no case of dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration nor it is the case of dishonest or fraudulent removal of concealment of the property.

Likewise in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner having been found that the name of the transferor has already been recorded in Register-II got it purchased from the

recorded tenant, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

Further in the facts and circumstances, in absence of any factual fact constituting offence under Section 3(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance Case No.33 of 2002 (Special Case No. 38 of 2002) including the order dated 18.11.2009, under which cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/423/424/467/468/469/471/477/201/ 120B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against this petitioner, is hereby quashed.

In the result, this application is allowed."

8. It is well settled that findings recorded in a criminal case are not binding in a civil proceeding. But considerable importance may be attached to the findings recorded by the Criminal Court, in particular, when the issue decided by the Criminal Court is again raised in a civil proceeding. Whether name of the Society through the appellant was mutated fraudulently in revenue records is not the issue which would decide right, title and interest of the appellant over the land in question. The case set-up by the appellant is that by virtue of Sada Hukumnama executed by ex-landlord Maharaja of Ratugarh on 22nd March 1942 the land in question came in possession of Samu Sahu. However, the unregistered Sada Hukumnama which would have no binding effect as provided under section 49 of the Indian Registeration Act is not even supported by corroborative documentary evidence. Except rent receipt of 1970-71 issued to the vendor, there is no documentary evidence that entry in Register-II in favour of the appellant's vendor was lawful.

9. The following findings recorded by the writ Court in the order dated 7th August 2008 are based on proper application of the materials produced by both parties:

"6. ....... It appears that the illegal Jamabandi of Gairmazarua Khas land is the valuable property of the State Government, which stood vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and was rightly annulled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. It is further clear that the contention of the petitioner about the Ex. Landlord having submitted its return to the State Government at the time of vesting of Jamindari and the contention that the State Government had accepted the vendors of the petitioner as raiyats is on the face of it false and erroneous for the sole reason that no rent receipt from 1956 to 1983 was produced by the petitioner to prove his claim. Even the photo copy of the Jamabandi as produced by the petitioner upon examination was found to be forged and fake and held to be procured in collusion with some of the revenue officials. The fact remains that both criminal and departmental proceedings have already been initiated against the delinquent officials and charge

sheet has also been submitted. The contention of the petitioner that Sada Hukumnama and Jamindari receipts were produced also cannot be relied upon for the sole reason that the same can always be manufactured and in any case, no original document was filed by the petitioner and the Xerox copy cannot be relied upon. The fact remains that criminal cases have already been lodged against the petitioner also in the land scam case with regard to manipulation of forged documents and interference with the government records in connivance and collusion with the revenue officials for which vigilance case has already been initiated and is pending as RC Case No. 20 of 2000 and further departmental proceedings have also been initiated wherein charge sheet has been filed. It will be apparent on perusal of Register-II that the Jamabandi of the said disputed lands was created in Register-II based on forged Sada Hukumnama in the year 1970-71 in the name of Samu Sao in collusion with the Revenue Officers of the State Government, who were neither authorized nor competent. In any case, the entry in Register-II was without any order of the competent authority and against the statutory law and circulars of the Government and the entire action of the petitioner was by way of fraud and collusion and, thus, he is not entitled to any equitable relief. The contention of the petitioner that no action under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was initiated is also unsustainable for the sole reason that the transfer itself was illegal, fraudulent and by way of collusion and, thus, not tenable and in any case, the land, in question, vested in the State and that is how it came into possession and the State is the statutory owner of the land.

7. In the aforesaid background, the illegal Jamabandi based on forged Sada Hukumnama in collusion with the Government officials without obtaining the order of the competent authority was rightly cancelled by both the authorities i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner by a concurrent findings of facts and law. This writ petition, thus, being devoid of any merit, is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs."

10. The State of Jharkhand has pleaded that the land over which the appellant raised a claim was subject matter of investigation which is under RC Case No. 20 of 2000. The transcation involved in the present case has been found fraudulent which can certainly be looked into under section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, LPA No. 340 of 2008 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 30th June 2022 Tanuj/ N.A.F.R