Jharkhand High Court
Baijnath Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. ( C) No. 796 of 2017
Baijnath Tiwari -Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa
3. The Additional Collector, Garhwa
4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Town), Nagar Utari, Garhwa
5. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa
6. The Circle Officer, Nagar Utari, Garhwa
7. The Officer-in-charge, Nagar Utari, Garhwa
8. Bulaki Sk.
9. Firdosh Ansari
10. Rafique Ansari
11. Munna Ansari
12. Wasim Ansari
--Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv.
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, A.C to A.A.G-IA
--
08/20.03.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for direction upon the State
Authorities to help the petitioner in erecting the boundary wall, as the land in
question has been demarcated under order of Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar
Utari, Garhwa as contained in Memo no. 149 dated 09.06.2015. The petitioner
claims title and possession over 30 decimal of land being Plot No. 672 in
Mauza- Jangipur, Thana-Nagar Utari. This above plot is recorded in Khata No.
141 and as per the claim, this Khata belongs to this petitioner.
3. It appears that title suit being Title Suit No. 48 of 1989 has been filed by
one Mandeep Tiwari against this petitioner, for annulling the sale deed through
which the present petitioner has acquired the said land. It appears that the said
suit has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005. It appears
that after dismissal of the said suit, the present petitioner has filed
Miscellaneous Case for demarcation of the said land and the same was
registered as a Demarcation Case No. 11 of 2006-07. Thereafter the Circle
Officer, Garhwa vide its order dated 12.5.2006 has ordered for demarcation of
the said land in presence of police force and submit a report. That order has
been upheld by Additional Collector, Garhwa as well as by Deputy
Commissioner, Garhwa. It appears that the petitioner has approached the
Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand and also submitted some reports. Thus, there is
series of orders by Administrative (Revenue) Authorities for demarcation of
said land and helping the petitioner for erection of the boundary wall. Learned
counsel by referring to Sections 14 & 16 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011,
has submitted that once the application for mutation is made, it is bounded duty
of the authorities to do the mutation after necessary enquiry. Once the mutation
is done, then it is a proof that the petitioner is in possession of the said land and
authorities are supposed to help the petitioner for retaining the possession and
to maintain law and order to implement the order passed by the revenue
authorities. It is further submitted that both the parties have presented their
cases before revenue authorities and after considering the claim of both the
parties, the order for demarcation has been passed and it has been declared that
this applicant is in possession of the land in question.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state has supported the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by filing counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 to 12 has opposed the prayer
of learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been alleged that Title Suit no.
48 of 1989 was between the family members and this petitioner was not party
to that title suit and as such any findings recorded in that suit is not binding
upon this petitioner. Further, the revenue authorities has no power and
jurisdiction to decide the possession and title over the property. It is purely
function of judicial authority. The revenue authorities has exceeded its
jurisdiction on that basis the claim of the petitioner has been objected. Further it
has been submitted that they have claimed title over the said property on the
strength of sale deed purchased from one Glad Stone Mineral Industries Ltd.
He has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 383 of
2018 dated 26th November, 2018. Para-3 of the said judgment is quoted herein
below:
"Para-3 : We are of the view that the dispute involved in this
proceeding is essentially civil in nature and it would be for the
court of competent civil jurisdiction to determine the question of
legality of the deed of gift which goes to the very core of the rival
claims. But, considering the reasoning of the learned First Court,
we do not want to interfere with the order under appeal. The
learned First Court had considered the factual position while
quashing the part of the order of the Circle Officer by which stay of
issue of rent receipt was stayed. We however direct that any step
taken consequent to issue of the rent receipt shall abide by the
decree or order of the Civil Court in the event appropriate action is
instituted in such Court."
Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in
(2018) 12 SCC 799 [Hapur Pilkhua Development Authority, Hapur-Vs.
Swantatra Bharat Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]. Para 6, 8, 9 of the said
judgment, are quoted hereunder:
"6. Certain relevant facts which are on record would now
require a specific notice. The first is that the respondent-writ
petitioners, as plaintiffs, had instituted a separate suit i.e.
Original Suit No. 155 of 2006 seeking a declaration of title in
respect of three plots i.e. Plots Nos. 714, 2136 and 2149. The
said suit was filed at a point of time anterior to filing of the
writ petition. Though the connected records of the writ petition
are not available, it would not be wrong to presume that the
respondent-writ petitioners would have brought to the notice of
the High Court that the aforesaid suit has been filed by them
for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the same land
as involved in the writ petition. Once the High Court was
apprised of the said fact (which we have presumed was so done
and if not so done the writ petition would have been liable to
be dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts), the High
Court ought not to have proceeded to test the validity of the
resumption notice and the entitlement of the respondent-writ
petitioners to the relief claimed inasmuch as the same hinged
on the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the declaration of
title to the land which was pending in Original Suit No. 155 of
2006.
8. It will not be necessary for us to adjudicate the question as
to whether the findings recorded in the judgment delivered in
Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 would operate as res judicata to
the question of title of Plots Nos. 2136 and 2149. It will be
sufficient for the purpose of testing the validity of the High
Court order to confine the area of scrutiny to the correctness on
the part of the High Court to decide the writ petition at a stage
when Original Suit No. 155 of 2006 was pending and the effect
of the decision rendered by the High Court in the said writ
petition on the pending suit. Having considered the matter for
the aforesaid limited perspective we arrive at the conclusion
that the High Court was not right in proceeding to adjudicate
the issues arising in the writ petition as the same virtually
prejudged the reliefs sought in Original Suit No. 155 of 2006.
The reliefs sought in the writ petition being based on a claim of
title and a suit for declaration of such title being pending, the
High Court ought not to have proceeded to determine the said
issues in the writ petition in question.
9. In view of the above discussion, we take the view that the
order of the High Court dated 6-7-20091 would merit our
interference. We, accordingly, set aside the said order.
However, we make it clear that we have expressed no opinion
on the legality of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 155 of
2006 and we also leave it open for the respondent-writ
petitioners to resist the resumption order dated 20-9-2008 and
such ancillary proceedings that may be initiated in respect of
land covered by Plots Nos. 2149 and 2136 in accordance with
law by instituting appropriate proceedings before the
competent court. Consequently and in light of the above, we
allow this appeal subject to our observations as above and set
aside the order of the High Court dated 6-7-2009".
The judgment is to the effect that the civil dispute between the
parties cannot be settled by the revenue authorities.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
records, it appears that there are two claimants on the land in question and the
matter has to be settled by the Civil Court. The revenue authorities has tried to
settle the civil dispute to which they are not authorized under the law. It is
purely jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The exercise of power of Civil Court by
the Administrative (Revenue) Authorities is not permissible in law.
7. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the present writ
petition. It is hereby dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
jk
