Gunuwa Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1202 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                  W.P. (C) No. 7685 of 2011
                          ........

Gunuwa Munda, son of Late Budhua Munda, resident of Village - Hesal, Karanj Toli, P.S. - Sukhdeonagar, P.O. - Hehal, District - Ranchi.

.... ..... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

3. The Circle Officer, Kanke .... ..... Respondents

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

For the Petitioner : None.

For the Respondents/State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)-II.

........

06/28.03.2022.

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V and learned counsel, Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)- II are present.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V assisted by learned counsel, Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)-II that the judgment and decree are of the year 1966, though the petitioner Gunuwa Munda applied for mutation vide Mutation Case No. 1783R27/2010-11 after approximately 44 years. It has been further stated by the counsel for the State that in counter affidavit dated 17.04.2012 filed by the State through Sanjay Kumar, son of Ayodhya Prasad, Circle Officer, Kanke, at para-6, that on spot inquiry, it has been found that petitioner is not in possession over the land and as such, the application for mutation of the land in question has been rejected by the Circle Officer, Kanke.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V has further submitted that nothing has been written in the counter affidavit with regard to possession over the land by somebody else.

From perusal of materials brought on record, it appears that it is a serious issue, as such, this Court is taking the entire fact in this order.

The petitioner has applied for mutation on 06.07.2010 before the Circle Officer, Kanke on the ground that petitioner is entitled for 0.81½ acres of land, out of 1.63 acres of land of Khata No. 61, Plot No. 917, 1232, 1233, situated at Village - Tender, P.S.- Kanke, District - Ranchi, as rest of the land was fall in the share of one Birsa Munda. The petitioner has claimed the land on the basis of judgment passed in Title Suit No. 84/1967. The Circle Officer, Kanke vide impugned order dated 04.08.2010 has recorded that public notice ( vke lqpuk ) was published and the service report was received and nobody had put any objection.

The mutation has been rejected by the Circle Officer, Kanke on the basis of report submitted by the concerned Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector, that on spot inquiry, it was found that neither the applicant nor his ancestors have possession over the land in question.

This Court fails to understand the legal acumen of the then Circle Officer, Kanke, who has passed the impugned order dated 04.08.2010, as possession can be of two types, notional as well as physical. If a person has a decree by a competent civil court of law, which has not been assailed by anybody and if the Government is not claiming the said land, it means that the decree holder is in notional possession over the same. Decree holder, apart from constructing a house or utilizing the land or keeping the land vacant is in notional possession of the same. As such, the report, on which the Circle Officer, Kanke has placed reliance, as submitted by concerned Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector are not binding upon the Circle Officer their superior authority in the revenue department.

This Court has experienced that all the Circle Officers being the lowest Gazetted Officers in the revenue department are taking shelter for their illegal order of the report submitted by Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector for their protection.

The Division Bench of this Court has already deprecated such act of the revenue department in L.P.A. No. 142/10 with L.P.A. No. 307/2009, whereby Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has made

observation in para-10 (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) which are being quoted here:-

(d) Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008, who are the husband and wife have purchased small piece of land ad-measuring 20 decimals each from Rang Nath Sahu by registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and 07.07.1992.

(e) They applied for mutation entry and the application was treated as Mutation Case No. 183R 27/1993-1994 before the Circle Officer, Town, Anchal and it was allowed. Thus, mutation entries were carried out in the name of the purchasers and petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 as well as petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008 from 1993-1994.

(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.

(Emphasis supplied) It appears to this Court, that Halka Karamchari, who is the lowest in the rank of the revenue offices has made a remark, on which the castle are being built by the higher revenue authorities. This Court deprecates such act of the Circle Officer. It seems that the then Circle Officer, Kanke is not fit to be posted as Circle Officer or in the Revenue Department because he has created mess of the system.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as the writ petitioner has title over the land, nobody has objected and State has never claimed this land, as it is apparent from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents / State.

It is incumbent upon the Circle Officer, Kanke to mutate the land in favour of the petitioner.

However before parting with the judgment, this Court directs the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand to take legal action against such Circle Officers, who are relying upon report of Halka Karamchari for creating mess in the revenue records, which shows lack of proper understanding of the mutation law by such officers. It is incumbent upon the Circle Officers to submit their own report in revenue matter than to rely upon report submitted by the Halka Karamchari or Circle Inspector.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand for taking legal action against the such officers in accordance with law.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-