Jharkhand High Court
Ramchandra Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (C). No. 4786 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C ) No. 4786 of 2017
1. Ramchandra Sahu, S/o Late Fanindra Sahu
2. Rajkishore Sahu, S/o late Fanindra Sahu
3. Radheshyam Sahu, S/o, late Fanindra Sahu
All residents of village- Nawagarh, P.O.- Raidih, P.S.-
Raidih, Dist.- Gumla, Jharkhand .......... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand , through the Deputy Commissioner,
Gumla, At - P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, Jharkhand
2. The Circle Officer Raidih, at Raidih, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.-
Raidih, Dist.- Gumla, Jharkhand
3. Balbhadra Sahu, S/o late Rungtu Sahu
4. Sahodar Sahu, S/o late Rungtu Sahu
5. Santosh Sahu, S/o late Loknath Sahu
6. Satish Sahu, S/o late Loknath Sahu
7. Birendra Sahu, S/o late Udaypal Sahu
8. Vivek Sahu, S/o late Udaypal Sahu
All residents of village- Nawagarh, P.O.- Raidih, P.S.-
Raidih, Dist.- Gumla, Jharkhand ........... Respondents
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta , Adv.
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC I.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC I.
Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer
for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Revenue Revision no. 38 of 2014-
15, whereby and where under the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
has allowed the Revenue Revision petition no. 38/2014-15 and set
aside the order dated 09.10.2014 of Mutation appeal No. 04 of 2014
passed by D.C.L.R., Gumla whereby the order D.C.L.R., Gumla set
aside the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Circle Officer,
Raidih in Mutation Case no. 42 (R )27 / 2013-14, by which the
order of mutation was passed in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 8.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the
petitioners is that the grandfather of the petitioners namely Bhola
Sahu got the land which is the subject matter of this writ petition;
settled, from the ex-landlord by a registered deed of Kabuliyat,
which was subsequently settled by Hukumnama. Hence, Bhola
Sahu and thereafter, his sons and grandsons are having absolute
right, title and possession of the land bearing RS plot no. 1720,
Khata no. 41 of village- Nawagarh, area 2.18 Acre, hereinafter,
referred as 'case land'. It is the further case of the petitioner that on
vesting of the Zamindari, the Zamindar submitted return and the
revenue authority recognized the right, title and possession of
Bhola Sahu and created Jamabandi in his name and opened Register
II. Accordingly, on payment of revenue, government issued
revenue rent receipt in the name of the Bhola Sahu alone. In the
year 1980, the government acquired some portion of the land from
Bhola Sahu for construction of road and Bhola Sahu was paid
compensation of Rs. 4336/- in Land Acquisition Case no. 29 of
1957-58. In the year, 1981, there was a survey operation, in which ,
the brothers of Bhola Sahu namely Rungtu Sahu and Deonath
Sahu who are respectively the father of the private respondents,
fraudulently, influenced the survey authority and inserted their
names by showing the forged panchyati deed of the partition,
which was held to be forged by the Assistant Settlement Officer,
in proceeding before him and the said order of the Assistant
Settlement Officer, in survey objection case no. 31 of 1981 dated
02.12.1981 deleting the name of Rungtu Sahu and Deonath Sahu
from the revenue records has not been challenged and thus has
reached finality. As in the year 2014, the respondent no. 3 to 8 were
trying to enter upon the land, by showing the joint revenue rent
receipt in the name of Bhola Sahu and others, the petitioners
enquired the matter and found that the Circle Officer, Raidih has
passed the order dated 31.10.2013 in Mutation Case no.
42R27/2013-14 without giving opportunity to be heard to the
original Jamabandi holders, i.e. the petitioners and also without
following the provision of law of mutation. It is asserted by the
petitioners that the respondent no. 2 has only jurisdiction to
mutate the name on the basis of the succession, partition, and
transfer. The respondent no. 3 to 8, applied for mutation on the
ground of succession, by showing forged deed of partition,
claiming themselves to be the successor of the Jamabandi Raiyat.
The Circle Officer, Raidih being the respondent no. 2 passed the
order that respondent nos. 3 to 8, are the heirs of the Jamabandi
Raiyats and on that basis, mutation was allowed. It is submitted
that though the respondent nos. 3 to 8 are not the direct
descendants of of Bhola Sahu rather the petitioners are the only
direct descendants and thus heir of Bhola Sahu. The petitioners
asserted that the there was no partition between the ancestors of
the petitioners and the ancestors of respondent no. 3 to 8, which
has already been held, as such by the Assistant Settlement Officer
and which has reached finality. The Jamabandi in the name of
Bhola Sahu was running from 1934 to 2013 which could not have
been interfered with by the Circle Officer. The petitioner filed the
Mutation Appeal No. 04 of 2014 and the D.C.L.R. /SDM, Gumla.
After through enquiry of the record and after hearing the parties,
the D.C.L.R. /SDM, Gumla set aside the mutation order of the
Circle Officer vide his order dated 09.10.2014 in Mutation Appeal
No. 04 of 2014. The respondent nos. 3 to 8 filed a revision before
the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and though the complicated
question of succession and partition, cannot be decided in
mutation proceeding and as such, revisional authority, has no
jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the claims of the parties,
once it was clearly demonstrated before it that no notice was
served upon the petitioners, by the Circle Officer and the same
itself was sufficient to dismiss the revision, but the Deputy
Commissioner, having illegally set aside the said order passed by
the D.C.L.R. /SDM, Gumla; it is submitted that the order dated
12.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in
Revenue Revision no. 38 of 2014-15, be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 8, on the other hand,
submits that no illegality has been committed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Gumla in passing the impugned judgment dated
12.06.2017 in Revenue Revision no. 38 of 2014-15. It is further
submitted that Bhola Sahu being the eldest son, was assisting his
father in Zamindari work, as per the prevalent custom. The father
of Bhola Sahu namely Laldhar Sahu, acquired the land in the
name of his eldest son Bhola Sahu by virtue of registered Kabuliyat
for the purpose of making house and Bari for the benefit of his
family. Laldhar Sahu constructed residential house over the 'case
land' and Bhola Sahu did not raise any objection at the time of the
said construction and the rent was paid to the ex-landlord from
the family income and after vesting of the estate, correction slip
has been issued in the name of all the three brothers vide Mutation
case no. 2 / 1957-58 and the said correction slip was given by
Bhola Sahu to Rungtu Sahu, so the land in question was a joint
property of Bhola Sahu, Rungtu Sahu and Deonath Sahu. After
1965, all the three sons of Laldhar Sahu started to live separately
and they also started their occupation and cultivation separately
for the sake of convenience; in order to avoid any future litigation.
The Circle Officer after complying with all the rules and
regulations as contained in Bihar Tenant Holding and
Maintenance of Records (Act), rightfully mutated the land in
favour of the respondent no. 3 to 8, with respect to the land in
question in revenue record. It is next submitted that the Deputy
Commissioner has properly considered the fact of the case,
materials available in the records, as well as the relevant
provisions of law and rightly allowed the revision, hence, this writ
petition, being without any merit be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 also defends the
impugned order.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, the
undisputed fact remains that the Circle Officer has not issued,
notice to the petitioners, who were undisputedly the class I heirs of
Fanindra Sahu, who was the only son of Bhola Sahu in the
proceeding. It is also the undisputed fact that the revenue record
was running in the name of Bhola Sahu from 1934 to 2013. It is
further the undisputed fact that the Assistant Settlement Officer,
vide his order dated 02.12.1981 in Survey Objection Case No. 31 of
1981, has held that panchayati deed of partition to be a forged one
and such finding has reached finality, the same having not been
challenged by the ancestors of the respondent no. 3 to 8 being
Rungtu Sahu and Deonath Sahu. The Circle Officer, behind the
back of the petitioners, by not issuing them the notice, has relied
upon the forged partition deed, which has been held to be forged,
as such by a competent authority being the Assistant Settlement
Officer in Survey Objection case no. 31 of 1981 and mutated the
names of the respondent no. 3 to 8; on the basis of the said
deformities partition deed and these facts, itself, are sufficient to
set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer which has rightly
been set aside by the D.C.L.R./ SDM, Gumla in Mutation Appeal
No. 04 of 2014. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla without taking
all these facts before it, has casually observed that possibility of
the court below meaning thereby, D.C.L.R. having passed the
order without taking into consideration the relevant facts, cannot
be ruled out and has also casually mentioned that the fact that in
Title Suit No. 01 of 2015 and 02 of 2015, the 'case land' has not been
included, raises a question mark and thus, without giving any
finding, has committed perversity by exceeding his jurisdiction of
a revisional court, and has erroneously set aside the order of
D.C.L.R. in Mutation Appeal No. 04 of 2014.
7. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner, Gumla being the order dated 12.06.2017
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Revenue Revision
no. 38 of 2014-15 and also the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the
Circle Officer, Raidih in Mutation Case no. 42 (R )27 / 2013-14 are
not sustainable in law, accordingly, the same are set aside.
8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.
9. If the respondent nos. 3 to 8 so advised, they may file the Title Suit
for establishing their title. It is made clear that this court is not
made any comment regarding the title of the respondent nos. 3 to
8.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 15th February, 2024
Smita /AFR
