Jharkhand High Court
Prabir Kumar Bhadra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 587 of 2021
-----
1.Prabir Kumar Bhadra
2(a).Suchitra Bhadra
3.Ila Mitra
4.Pranab Kumar Bhadra .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Land Reforms, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
4.The Additional Collector, Dhanbad
5.The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad
6.The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Dhanbad
7.The Circle Officer, Baghmara, Dhanbad ... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC-(L&C)-II
Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, AC to SC (L&C)-II
.........
15 /17.01.2024: Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners by filing this writ petition has challenged the order
dated 17.11.2020 passed in Misc. Mutation Cancellation Case No.21 of
2010-11.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the jamabandi was running in
the name of father of this petitioners. As the jamabandi was running
since 1964, by the impugned order dated 17.11.2020, the same could
not have been cancelled casting a doubt on the title of the petitioners,
that to, at the instance of the State. He submits that the State by passing
the impugned order has questioned the title of the petitioners and in
fact is claiming title over the property. The proper course, in such
situation, should have been, to approach the Civil Court, rather than
taking a circuitous method, by cancelling the jamabandi. In support of
his contention he rely upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Datta vs. State of Jharkhand
& Ors., reported in 2022 (1) JBCJ 253 (HC).
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the State submits that in earlier
round of litigation, there was a direction to enquire into the matter and
pass a speaking order. It was found that jamabandi was doubtful as
the document did not match with each other and no returns were filed
nor there was any mutation case number mentioned and the
petitioners are not in possession. Thus, the jamabandi was cancelled
as there is doubt over the title of the property, so far as the petitioners
are concerned.
5. From the submissions of the parties, I find that it is admitted that
the jamabandi was running in the name of father of the petitioners
since 1964-65. This long running jamabandi could not have been
cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner on grounds mentioned
therein, more so questioning the title of the petitioners.
6. It is well settled proposition of law that long running jamabandi
cannot be cancelled as had been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench in
the case of Tarun Kumar Datta (Supra).
7. Furthermore, the State has challenged the title of the petitioners
by cancelling the jamabandi. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the
jamabandi at the instance of the State. Since the State is questioning
title of the petitioners, they could not have become the judge of their
own cause and nor could have cancelled the jamabandi, which was
long standing in the name of the father of the petitioners. They should
have approached the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for
declaration of title. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 17.11.2020 passed in Misc. Mutation
Cancellation Case No.21 of 2010-11 is quashed. It will be open to the
State to file an appropriate title suit claiming title over the property.
9. I.A. No.11092 of 2023 also stands disposed of.
R.S. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
