Sudhir Kumar Rakhit & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1760 Jhar

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                             W.P.(C) No. 3303 of 2008
       Sudhir Kumar Rakhit & Ors.                                .... .. ... Petitioners
                                 Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                             .. ... ... Respondents
                                  ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through Video Conferencing) .........

       For the Petitioners                          : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
       For the respondents-State                    : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I
                                           ......
14/ 04.05.2022.
               Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners- 1.Sudhir Kumar Rakhit, 2.Ashok Kr Dutta, 3.Devendra Kumar Sharma, 4.Narayan Chandra Mandal, 5.Manik Chandra Lauha, 6.Uttam Kar and

7.Moni Roy have preferred the instant writ petition on 05.07.2008 for quashing notice dated 23.05.2008 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara in R.M. Case No.2/2008-09 whereby a notice has been issued upon the petitioners under Section 69 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, by canceling the demand opened in the name of private persons as the land has become Government land after abolition of the zamindari. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that land situated over Plot No.1842 and 1845 of Mouza Kundahit, Khata No.222, having an area of 1.87 acres was recorded in the name of Ex- landlord, namely, Brajbala Trust Estate hetampur as Bakasht Malik in the record of rights.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has submitted, that Kundahit Police Station was a tenant under the Ex-landlord over a portion of the land aforementioned on the monthly rent of Rs.300/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that petitioners have purchased the land and structures standing thereon from the ex-landlord by a registered deed of sale bearing deed No.618 and 619 both dated 29.04.1995.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that after execution of the sale deed, the petitioners became the absolute owner of the said land along with structures standing thereon and got the names mutated by order of the S.D.O., Jamtara on recommendation of the Circle Officer in terms of order dated 18.09.1996 and started paying rent to the State of Bihar. The Kundahit Police Station was paying rent to the petitioners as landlord, but from March, 2001, they stopped paying rent.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that on default in payment of rent, a notice under Section 80 CPC was issued and subsequent thereto a Title (Eviction) Suit has been filed by the petitioners on the ground of default and personal necessity vide Title (Eviction) Suit No.2/2001 in which the State of Jharkhand contested but the suit was decided in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners in terms of judgment dated 16.09.2006 (decree signed on 02.11.2006) passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Jamtara.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that the State has preferred an appeal before the competent court vide Title Appeal No.14 of 2006, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jamtara in terms of judgment dated 25.08.2007. Thereafter Execution case was filed vide Execution Case No.13/2007. The petitioners were put in possession over the land in question through the process of court on 30.05.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted that mutation proceeding was initiated vide Mutation Case No.149/1995-96. In the said proceeding one Sanat Kumar Gorai had objected, but objection petition was rejected by the SDO, Jamtara on 18.09.1996. Thereafter the said Sanat Kumar Gorai has preferred an appeal against the order of the SDO, Jamtara dated 18.09.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.149/1995-96 before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara vide R.M.A. Appeal No.56/1996-97. The said appeal was kept in abeyance for long time and after the decree passed in Eviction Suit, the Revenue Misc. Appeal No.200/2001-02 (Basant Kumar Mishra vs. Narayan Chandra Mandal) and R.M.A. Case No.56/1996-97 (Sanat Kumar Gorai vs. Sudhir Kumar Rakhit) have been amalgamated and the mutation in favour of the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated 12.05.2008 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that this is glaring example of high handedness of the respondent- State. They are not behaving under the four corners of law, but as now they are behaving like a muscle man, having a big ego than the law. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel in support of his submission has relied upon Section 69 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, which reads as follows:-

69. Bat to acquisition of right over certain lands. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or anything having the force of law in the Santhal Parganas, no right shall accrue to any person in,-

(a) land held or acquired in contravention of the provision of Section 20, or

(b) land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Government or for any local authority or for a railway company, while such land remains the property of the

Government or of any local authority or of a railway company, or

(c) land recorded or demarcated as belonging to the Government or to a local authority which is used for any public works, such as a road, canal or embankment, or is required for the repair or maintenance of the same, while such land continues to be so used or required, or

(d) a vacant holding retained by a village headman, mulraiyat and members of their family, or a landlord, or

(e) village headman's official holding, grazing land, jeharthan and burning and burial grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that the provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 is not applicable, so far the land of the petitioners is concerned, but even then the petitioners have to move before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel has further submitted, that the order of eviction passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Jamtara has been affirmed by District Judge, Jamtara in appeal, the State has preferred Second Appeal before this Court, but no order has been passed by this Hon'ble Court in Second Appeal, even then the SDO, Jamtara is issuing such direction, as such, this Court may pass necessary order.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I has submitted, that counter-affidavit has already been filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 through Sri Satya Prakash, S/o Late A. Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Jamtara on 03.05.2011, wherein it has been submitted that Bakasht land is not transferable and further the Second Appeal is also pending before this Court, which was registered as Second Appeal No.39/2008.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I has fairly submitted, that Bakasht land cannot be a government land, because the same is for own use of the landlord before vesting of the Estate. Bakasht land is for Malik for his own use.

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on the record, it appears that the State cannot claim a Bakasht land as it has never been vested in the State, rather it remains with the landlord even after vesting of the Estate.

So far the Eviction Suit is concerned, it has been decided against the State, affirmed by the learned appellate court and the Second Appeal is pending before this Court. However, once a decree has been passed by the competent court of law, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and SDO, Jamtara should not have interfered in such possession by passing illegal orders in mutation proceeding under appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and SDO, Jamtara are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is hereby allowed. The State-authorities are directed to issue rent receipt in favour of the

petitioners or their successor(s) in-interest without having any interruption till any order is passed by the competent court of law, setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners.

I.A. No.1312 of 2009 and I.A. No.2971 of 2011 are hereby closed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms Government of Jharkhand through E-mail or FAX.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.