Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Charan Dwari @ Rajendra Charan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 399 of 2023
Rajendra Charan Dwari @ Rajendra Charan Dvari S/o Sharad Charan
Dwari @ Dvari aged about 59 years R/o House No. 27A, Laxmi
Daram Dwari Lane, Laxmi Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, Dist-
Deoghar. ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Deoghar, P.O and P.S Deoghar, Dist-
Deoghar.
3. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar officiating from his office at S.P
Office, Deoghar, P.O and P.S Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Deoghar, P.O and P.S Deoghar, Dist-
Deoghar.
5. Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Collectorate
Building, Deoghar, P.O and P.S Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar.
6. Officer In Charge, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Town,
Deoghar, P.O and P.S Deoghar, Dist- Deoghar.
7. Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, Officiating from his office at Registry
Office, Deoghar P.O and P.S Deoghar, Dist- Deoghar.
8. Pranay Sinha, S/o late Madan Mohan Prasad, age not known to
the Petitioner, R/o of Basuwadih, P.O and P.S Jasidih, dist-
Deoghar.
9. Jai Kumar aged about 40 years, S/o Late Jawahar Charan Dwary,
R/o Govind Khaware Lane, B. Deoghar, P.O and P.S and Dist-
Deoghar, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the Resp.- State: Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.IV
For the Resp. No. 8: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
---------
08/Dated: 14.11.2024
1) In this Letters Patent Appeal, the order of the learned single
Judge passed on 04.07.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7003 of 2019 is assailed.
2) In the said judgment, the learned single Judge had held that
Circle Officers have necessary powers and jurisdiction to carry out
demarcation of private property upon filing of an application by one or
other concerned party on payment of requisite fee. The learned single
Judge has also held that the Circle Officers cannot take forcible
possession of the property from one or the other person and hand
over the same to another person while demarcating the property
pursuant to an application for demarcation of the land.
3) Counsel for the appellant contends that under the provisions of
Bihar (now Jharkhand) Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records)
Act, 1973, a Circle Officer has only power to make a mutation and has
no power to make any demarcation of private property. He points out
that in Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 notices issued by the Circle
Officer, Deoghar he had not only proposed to do a demarcation of the
property claimed by the applicant, but also threatened to hand over
possession of land found encroached to the applicant before him, who
has sought such demarcation. He also stated that proceedings dated
05.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 have been issued by the said officer
conducting demarcation.
4) Counsel for the respondent 8 who appears for the applicant
before the Circle Officer contends that the Circle Officer, Deoghar
himself subsequently on 10.10.2019 has withdrawn the notices issued
by him to the writ petitioners. He also does not dispute the legal
position that under the above statute, no such power is conferred on
the Circle Officer to conduct demarcation of any private property. He
however, referred to a cabinet decision dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure-
7).
5) Reading thereof shows that the cabinet had fixed the fee for
land demarcation measurement by a survey team and makes no
mention of conferring any power on the Circle Officer to make any
demarcation.
6) In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned
Single Judge had erred in giving a finding that Circle Officers are
having the necessary power and jurisdiction to carry out demarcation
of private properties upon filing of an application by one or the other
concerned party on payment of requisite fee. It was not necessary for
the learned single Judge to give such a finding once the Circle Officer,
Deoghar had actually withdrawn the notices issued by him to the
petitioners and the learned single Judge also could not have placed
reliance on the cabinet decision which contained no such provision
conferring any such power to make demarcation of land on the Circle
Officer.
7) Consequently, the proceedings dated 05.11.2019 and
14.11.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Deoghar in the instant case
are declared to be wholly without jurisdiction and shall not be relied
upon in any civil proceeding between the parties, since admittedly a
Title Suit Case No. 188 of 2019 is said to be pending before the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) No.-I at Deoghar.
8) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
learned single Judge, to the extent indicated above, is set aside.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Sharda/MM
