Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Kumar Mishra @ Surendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1093 of 2012
1. Surendra Kumar Mishra @ Surendra Mishra, son of Late
Nageshwar Mishra
2. Amod Kumar Mishra, son of late Nageshwar Mishra.
3. Birendra Misrha, son of late Nageshwar Mishra
4. Manoj Kumar Mishra, son of late Nageshwar Mishra
All residents of village Tamar, P.O. & P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having his office at Kutchhari
Chowk, P.O. Katchhari Post Office, P.S. Sadar, Ranchi Town,
District Ranchi
3. The D.C.L.R. Khunti, having his office at Khunti, P.O. & P.S.
Khunti, District Ranchi
4. Shyam Sunder Singh Munda, son of late Jagarnath Singh Munda
5. Bishwanath Singh Munda, son of Late Jagarnath Singh Munda
6. Lal Bahadur Singh Munda, son of late Jagarnath Singh Munda
Sl. Nos. 4 to 6 resident of village Tamar, P.O. & P.S. Tamar,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the Resp. - State : Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate
---
07/17.01.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent - State is also present.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For partially quashing of the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the
learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, in Misc. Appeal No.93R15 of 2003-04,
whereby and whereunder the learned Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the
petition filed by the father of the petitioners (after death of their father namely
Nageshwar Mishra, the petitioners substituted in this case.) and held that neither
the appellants / petitioners nor the respondents / respondents are entitled to claim
any portion of the land of R.S. Plot No.2242 of Khata No.1869 situated at village
- Tamar, P.S. - Tamar, District Ranchi being Gairmajarua Khas land have vested
into the state free from all encumbrances and further directed to the Circle
Officer, Tamar, to take immediate action for initiation of proceeding under Public
Land Encroachment Act against the concerned persons and to take possession of
the land."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
property involved in the present case i.e. R.S. Plot No.2242 under
Khata No.1869 Khewat No.136 situated at village Tamar, P.S. Tamar,
Thana No.241, District Ranchi (now Khunti) was recorded in the
Revisional Survey Record of Right as Gairmajaruwa khas in the name
of Sammilat Malikan Ramnarayan Singh and others. The grandfather
of the present petitioners namely Karu Mishra was in possession of 18
decimals of land of R.S. Plot No.2242 prior to vesting on the basis of
oral settlement made by the then landlord of the village in favour of
the grandfather of the petitioners and he had constructed house over
the said land. Even after vesting the estate of intermediary in the State
the grandfather of the petitioners continued to hold and possess the
aforesaid land. A petition was filed for fixation of rent and on the
basis of application, Case No.A/R 144 of 66-67 was drawn and after
due enquiry, the rent was also fixed. Thereafter, the grandfather of the
present petitioners started making payment of rent. The learned
counsel submits that entries have also been made in the record of right
in favour of the father of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that private
respondents had filed a petition before the Deputy Collector, Land
Reforms, khunti, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No.6 of
1997 - 98 and vide order dated 22.08.2003, the learned Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, Khunti, cancelled the long standing
jamabandi in the name of the father of the present petitioners with
respect to the aforesaid 18 decimals of land. The petitioners filed
Miscellaneous Appeal No.93 R 15 of 2003 - 04 before the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi, who set aside the order dated 26.08.2011 and
also held that the petitioners was also not entitled for any claim over
the portion of the land in R.S. Plot No.2242 of Khata No. 1869, which
was gair majurwa khas land and vested into the state free from all
encumbrance. The learned counsel submits that the authority had
further directed the Circle Officer, Tamar to take immediate action for
initiation of proceeding under Public Land Encroachment Act against
the persons concerned and take possession of the land.
6. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the impugned
order, on the one hand, the jamabandi was not opened in favour of the
applicant (respondent herein) and, on the other hand, the long standing
jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners has been cancelled.
7. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the present
petitioners are concerned, they are aggrieved by cancellation of long
standing jamabandi in their name, which is a result of an application
filed by third party i.e the private respondents and the petitioners are
further aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi to initiate a proceeding under Public Land
Encroachment Act. The learned counsel submits that the fact that
jamabandi was running in the name of the petitioners since long is not
in dispute and further the fact that the State is not in possession of the
property is also not in dispute in view of the fact that the Deputy
Commissioner had directed the Circle Officer to initiate a proceeding
under Public Land Encroachment Act. He submits that the long
standing jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners could not
have been cancelled and if any party including the State claims title
over the land, the same can be decided only through a competent court
of civil jurisdiction and not through initiation of proceeding under
Public Land Encroachment Act, which is itself a summary proceeding.
8. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by this
Court in the case of Jitan Mahto and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
reported in 2004 (1) JCR 497 (Jhr) and also judgment reported in
2003 SCC Online Jhar 194 (Mithila Sahakari Grih Nirman Sahyog
Samitee Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.).
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while
opposing the prayer of the petitioners has submitted that neither the
return of the ex-landlord was filed on behalf of any parties nor there
was any order fixing fair and equitable rent under Sections 5, 6 and 7
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. She has also submitted that the Circle
Officer, Tamar was not vested with the power to fix rent in the name
of the father of the petitioners with respect to 18 decimals of land out
of the said plot. There is also serious dispute as to who, whether the
petitioners or the private respondents are in possession of the property.
10. This Court finds that the petitioners are claiming the property
on the basis of oral settlement made by the then landlord of the village
in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners. It appears that
jamabandi was running in favour of the petitioners and rent was also
fixed in the year 1966-1967 in the proceeding bearing rent fixation
case no.A.R.144/66-67. The law is well settled that the orders passed
by revenue authorities neither creates nor extinguishes nor decides the
right, title and interest with respect of an immoveable property.
11. So far as the judgements relied upon by the petitioners are
concerned, the same do not apply under the facts and circumstances of
this case, is as much as in those cases there were admitted facts on
record regarding settlement of land and issuance of rent receipts much
prior to abolition of zamindari which is not the case in this writ
petition and here the settlement is being disputed by the state by
submitting that neither the return of the ex-landlord was filed on
behalf of any parties nor there was any order fixing fair and equitable
rent under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature
of dispute involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered
view that the matter involves disputed question of right, title, interest
and possession which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Such
disputes can be decided only by a competent court of civil jurisdiction.
Suffice is to observe that the title dispute can be adjudicated by civil
court upon being approached by any party including the State.
13. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
