Jharkhand High Court
Syed Shah Aftab Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (C) No. 6014 of 2015
Syed Shah Aftab Ahmad --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra
4. Circle Officer at Kanhachatti Circle, Chatra--- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate
For the Resp.-State: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C to G.A-V
---
07 / 02.02.2024 Petitioner has filed this application for issuance of appropriate writ (s)
and for declaring that Sandehatmak Case No. 02/2013-14 pending before the
Circle Officer, Kanhachatti and Suspected Case No. 46 / 2013 pending before
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, is illegal and without jurisdiction and is
liable to be quashed. It has been further prayed that the Respondents may be
restrained from interfering with the possession of the land of the petitioner
appertaining to Plot No (s). 408, 414, 416, 417 and 169 of Khewat No. 1 and
Plot No. (s) 19, 418, 420 (portion) and 468 of Khata No. 92 on which cattle fair
is held on the occasion of Basant Panchmi every year.
2. Case of the petitioner is that one Sharfuddin Khan of village Hamzapur,
District Gaya had taken settlement of the aforesaid land in the year 1942 from
the Ex-landlord Babu Mustaque Ali Khan and used to hold cattle fair every
year on the occasion of Basant Panchmi. In the year 1955, when the Jamindari
vested, the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra auctioned the aforesaid land
with one Md. Ishaque of Chatra, for which Sharfuddin Khan filed Title Suit no.
04/2015 of 1955-56 in the Court of 2nd Subordinate Judge, Hazaribag in which
Deputy Commissioner, Chatra was also made party. The Title Suit was decreed
in favour of Sharfuddin Khan and the learned court below restrained the
Deputy Commissioner, Chatra from interfering with the possession of the
petitioner and directed that the petitioner is entitled to collect toll from the Mela
and no other entity shall collect toll from the Mela.
3. The State Government did not contest the judgment and decree of the
Civil Court passed in Title Suit No. 4/2015 of 1955-56 and as such, the
judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 4/2015 of 1955-56 has attained
finality. Subsequently, Sandehatmak Case No. 100 of 1996-97 / 87 of 1998-99
were initiated in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra for cancellation of
mutation of Sharfuddin Khan over the aforesaid land.
4. It appears that vide order dated 19.01.2004 (Annexure-9(A)), Sub
Divisional Officer, Chatra regularized the mutation of the Sharfuddin Khan and
few others. Now, after the aforesaid order was passed, two proceedings have
been initiated by the State, i.e. Sandehatmak Case No. 2/13-14, which is
pending before the Circle Officer, Kanhachatti and Suspected Case No.
46/2013 which is pending before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that in L.P.A. No. 45 /
2000 (R), learned Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi
Bench affirmed the title of the petitioner with a direction to the Deputy
Commissioner, Chatra to demarcate the land of the petitioner as it was adjacent
to the Government land.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in question has
not been demarcated. This fact has been conceded by Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku,
learned A.C to G.A-V.
7. As the right, title and interest of the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner i.e. Sharfuddin Khan has been declared by the competent Civil Court
which has attained finality and earlier Sandehatmak Case instituted resulted in
favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner where mutation of the
petitioner was regularized, no occasion arises to continue proceedings in
Sandehatmak Case No. 2/2013 pending before the Respondent No. 4-Circle
Officer, Kanhachatti Circle, Chatra and Suspected Case No. 46/2013 pending
before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra. Accordingly, proceedings
of both these cases are quashed.
8. This writ application is allowed.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
