Jharkhand High Court
Umakant Rai And Another vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 22 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4240 of 2007
Umakant Rai and another ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai,
A.C. to S.C. (L&C I)
For the Resp. (5(i) to 5(iv) : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate
---
21/22.03.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are claiming the property on the basis of Hukumnama
issued in favour of the petitioners by the ex-landlord. The hukumnama
is dated 19.12.1948. He has further submitted that the property
involved in this case stood recorded in the name of one Kasturi
Raiyain wife of Lalit Raiyain who was none else than the own cousin
aunt of the original petitioner namely Baburam Rai. She had no son
and had only one daughter who got married and the original petitioner
was kept by the recorded tenant as her son while he was a boy of only
10 years and was brought up by her. The original petitioner lived with
his aunt since 1934-35 and used to take care of her and also performed
her last rites who died sometimes in the year 1943-44. He further
submits that the land lord (Ex-intermediary) of Handwa Estate finding
the original petitioner in long continuous possession of the land in
question, not only during the life time of the recorded tenant but also
after her death, granted Hukumnama Patta No. 23 dated 19.12.1948
and since then the original petitioner has remained in possession of the
property. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
even in the returns filed by the Ex-zamindar, the name of the original
petitioner has been mentioned in connection with the property
involved in the present case. The learned counsel submits that the very
fact that in the return, the name of the original petitioner was
mentioned, itself indicates that Hukumnama was issued in favour of
the original petitioner and the original petitioner was in continuous
possession of the property. He submits that the petitioner continued to
pay rent even after vesting of Zamindari. The learned counsel has
submitted that true copy of the return has been annexed as Annexure-4
to the writ petition.
3. However, a proceeding under Section 20 and 42 of Santhal
Pargana Tenancy Act was initiated against the original petitioner for
eviction which was numbered as R.E. Case No. 2 of 1984 by the court
of Asst. Settlement Officer, at Camp Amdiha as back as on
20.12.1984. It is submitted that from the order dated 20.12.1984 it
appears that one Gangadhar Rai, private respondent herein, appeared
before the Settlement officer and sought adjournment, but the
settlement officer proceeded to decide the case and ultimately passed
impugned order dated 22.01.1985 (Annexure-3) directing eviction of
the original petitioner and rejecting the Hukumnama Patta dated
19.12.1948. Learned senior counsel submits that Gangadhar Rai never
claimed the land in question and is not the legal heir of the recorded
tenant but still an order of eviction was passed.
4. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the original petitioner before
the Charge Officer, Dumka, which was numbered as R.M.A. Case No.
156 of 1986. The Charge Officer confirmed the order passed by the
Settlement Officer vide order dated 18.06.1986 (Annexure-2) by
holding that the Hukumnama dated 19.12.1948 cannot be accepted as
genuine as there was over writing in the date and the plea of adverse
possession was also rejected by the appellate authority by holding that
the original petitioner had not completed 12 years of possession over
the land in question prior to commencement of Santhal
Pargana(supplementary provisions) Tenancy, Act, 1949.
5. He submits that revision application was filed before the
learned Commissioner numbered as R.M.R. Case No. 200 of 1986-87
and by the impugned order dated 03.10.2006 the revision has also
been rejected.
6. The learned Senior counsel submits the learned Commissioner
has committed error of record by recording that the claim of the
petitioner i.e ex-landlord filed return in support of the Hukumnama,
was not supported by any document. The learned counsel submits that
the return of the Zamindari is on record which clearly refers to the rent
being paid by the original petitioner in connection with the property
involved in this case. The learned counsel has submitted that the
impugned order is illegal. He submits there was continuous possession
of the original petitioner since 1934-35 and therefore the original
petitioner had acquired the title by adverse possession under Santhal
laws.
7. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by this
court in W.P. (C) No. 5055 of 2003 decided on 07.04.2008 and also
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1995
BBCJ 448 (Division Bench). He has also submitted that a recent
judgment has been passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in L.P.A. No. 119 of 2019 dated 16.12.2022 wherein it has been
held that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled. The learned
counsel submits that jamabandi was running in the name of the
original petitioner since long and by the impugned order, long running
jamabandi has been indirectly cancelled in as much as the original
petitioner was directed to evict the property involved in the present
case.
8. He further submits that the private respondent never contested
the case before the authorities and the private respondent is a third
person altogether and not a jamabandi raiyat at all and no such finding
has been recorded that the private person is a jamabandi raiyat.
9. As the court's time is over, post this case for further hearing on
23.03.2023 at 10.30 A.M.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
