Md. Suddin vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2370 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        L.P.A. No. 769 of 2019

             Md. Suddin                                                  ---     Appellant
                                                      Versus
             1. State of Jharkhand
             2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
             3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih
             4. The Circle Officer, Tisri, Giridih
             5. Upgraded Middle School Bhrai, Giridih
             6. Md. Ibrahim
             7. Md. Mansur
             8. Md. Muslim
             9. Md. Mansafi
             10. Salim Mian
             11. Md. Karim
             12. Md. Barik
             13. Md. Israil
             14. Md. Hakim
             15. Unus Mian
             16. Ilias Mian
             17. Idris Mian
             18. Usman Mian
             19. Most. Bakani Khatoon                          ---                      Respondents
                                                   ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

For the Appellants : Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. Moushmi Chatterjee, Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C to S.C.-VII

----

10 /30.06.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and State.

2. Writ proceeding was initiated at the behest of the appellant for quashing of the order dated 17th April, 2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 27 of 2015, by which long running Jamabandi standing in the name of petitioner and the proforma respondents measuring an area of 7.28 ¼ /7.50 acres appertaining to Khata no. 13 plot no. 571 village-Palmo, District-Giridih had been directed to be cancelled.

3. Writ proceedings were disposed of in the following manner by setting aside the order dated 17th April, 2017.

"13. This Court has appreciated the factual aspect, as has been pleaded in this writ petition wherefrom it is admitted case of the petitioner that the land has been settled by virtue of Sada Hukumnama by the ex-landlord

which was also the subject matter of compensation after vesting of Jamindari and thereafter amount has been paid through the Circle Officer to be deposited in State exchequer.

It is admitted case of the State that for part of the land under Plot No. 571 settlement has been made in favour of State by virtue of notification issued on 4.01.1953 being notification no. 281 under which it was notified that settlement of land has been made pertaining to area of 3.45 acres out of total 7.50 acres under plot no. 571. Further, admitted case of the State is that rest of the land that is after deducting 3.45 acres from total 7.5 acres of land, the process for vesting is being taken by appropriate notification in this regard.

14. Therefore, admitted case is that so far the land pertaining to area 3.45 acres is concerned, the same has been acquired vide notification no. 281 dated 04.01.1953 by the State of Bihar and now is being utilized by the Education Department of the State. But so far as rest of the area of land is concerned, it has not yet been vested, as because specific finding has been recorded in this regard at paragraph 4 of the 9 impugned order to the effect that steps for vesting is being taken.

15. It is not in dispute that for vesting there is provision as contained under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 wherein a provision has been made at Section 4 (h) to deal with the issue of settlement if the settlement has been made after 1.1.1946 and if situation so arises, the Deputy Commissioner, after conducting enquiry in this regard and after following the principles of natural justice, the settlement found to be illegal, Jamabandi can be cancelled and the land has to be vested upon the State.

Admittedly, no such steps has been taken by the State as reflected from paragraph 4 of the impugned order.

16. It is further settled position of law that quasi-judicial authority while passing the order has to go by the finding recorded in the order and on the basis of that finding the ultimate conclusion has to be made. If the ultimate conclusion is contrary to the finding recorded, the conclusion will suffer from material irregularity and in that situation, it is always available to the writ Court to issue writ of certiorari to rectify the illegality committed by the quasi-judicial authority.

17. This Court, after going through the factual aspect of the matter and considering the settled position of law and going through the paragraph 4 of the impugned order, wherefrom it is the case of the State that only 3.45 acres of land has been vested in the State by way of notification no. 281 dated 4.1.1953 and for rest of the land appropriate action is being 10 taken for issuance of appropriate notification but in contrary to the said finding in the direction part, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Giridih has passed the order with respect to entire order of land pertaining to area 7.5 acres of land under plot no. 571 by cancelling the Jamabandi recorded therein with further direction to vest the land in favour of the Education Department, therefore, in the considered view of this Court the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Giridih is contrary to the finding recorded at paragraph 4 and as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

18. Accordingly, order dated 17.04.2017 is quashed, in consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the authority to pass fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which shall be produced within three weeks from the date of its receipt. The consequence will depend upon the final decision to be taken as directed above.

19. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

20. Interim order dated 03.12.2018 stands vacated."

The matter was remanded before the authority to pass a fresh order within stipulated period.

4. Writ petitioner preferred the present appeal on 14th November, 2019. The matter was effectively taken up on 21st March, 2022. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih had passed afresh order on remand dated 18th December, 2020 in Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 02 of 2020 which is Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent-State dated 19th April, 2022. The operative portion of the order of Deputy Commissioner reads as under:

"From perusal of the documents available on record and hearing the parties, it appears that 1st party is claiming 3.45 acres of land as Govt. land through several papers since 1954. Earlier it was in possession of State Govt. After transfer, it has came to Central Govt. and has been handed over along with the school to State Govt. in 1981. Upgraded Middle School, Bhurai is functioning over the same. Children of local villagers are studying therein and using remaining land as a playground of school.

On the other hand 2nd party is claiming the land in dispute on the basis of unregistered Hukumnama granted by Ex-landlord Badku Manjhi, S/o-Chudka Manjhi of Khewat no.-5. But from the perusal of said documents, it appears that the same has been filed-by one Chaman Mahto of Khewat no.-6 of village-Palmo, which is contradictory to each other and doubtful In the aforesaid circumstances, it seems that the 1st party members have succeeded to establish his claim over the land in dispute, whereas 2nd party members have failed to establish their grounds, Jambandi running in the name of 2nd party members is doubtful and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in W.P.(C) No -881/2002 between Jagdeo Mahto -vs-Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh the present Revision is liable to be allowed.

In such circumstances, the order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the LRDC, Giridih is hereby set aside and the present Revision is hereby allowed as well as the Jambandi running in the name of 2nd party members in respect of 3.45 acres of land in dispute under Khata no. 13, Plot no. 571 is hereby cancelled.

Circle Officer, Tisri is directed to take necessary action on the aforesaid context as well as enquire the Jambandi running for remaining land of Khata no. 13, Plot no 571 etc .in the name of 2nd party members or their ancestors. Let the copy of judgment be supplied to the parties concerned."

5. In substance, the order dated 26th September, 2015 passed by LRDC, Giridih has been set aside by allowing the revision petition and Jamabandi running in the name of the 2nd party members in respect of 3.45 acres of land in dispute under Khata no. 13, Plot no. 571 has been cancelled. Circle Officer, Tisri had been directed to take necessary action on the aforesaid context as well as to enquire Jamabadi running for remaining land of

Khata no. 13, Plot no. 571 etc. in the name of 2nd party members or their ancestor. Appellant sought to assail the instant order dated 18th December, 2020 in the present appeal by filing an interlocutory application bearing no. 3907 of 2022 taking a plea of subsequent development which has occurred during pendency of this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has taken a plea that fresh order passed on remand has given a fresh cause of action to the appellant which may be assailed in an appropriate proceeding.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the court may so permit, the appellant may be allowed liberty to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction to raise his grievances in relation to the claim of Jamabandi, where the question of title of the writ petitioner and the proforma respondents can also be adjudicated on the basis of evidence.

8. We are inclined to allow liberty to the appellant to raise his cause of action arising out of the order passed on remand before the competent court of civil jurisdiction as it appears that cancellation of long standing Jamabandi of the petitioner and the private respondents also involves disputed questions of fact on the claim of the title between the private parties and the State.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in that case, this Court may make it clear that any observations made by the learned writ court may not prejudice the outcome of the proceedings before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that earlier Title Suit No. 328 of 2015 was preferred for declaration of title against the order of cancellation of Jamabandi by LRDC. However, it was unconditionally withdrawn as per the order at Annexure-9 dated 18th August 2019 since the writ petition had thereafter been preferred. However, since the appellant has got a fresh cause of action in view of the order of remand dated 18th December, 2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih pursuant to the directions passed by the writ court, the withdrawal of the title suit should not operate in filing a fresh suit for declaration of title and the claim of Jamabandi and possession. Moreover, since the order dated 17th April, 2017 was set aside by the learned writ court and the matter was remanded to the revisional authority to pass fresh order, any observations made by the learned writ court would also not prejudice the case of the parties before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. Pending I.As are closed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought some interim protection to preserve status qua of the property in question. However, such liberty is also available to the appellant/plaintiff before the competent court of civil jurisdiction by filing an appropriate injunction application.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) jk/