Alak Nanda Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10020 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Alak Nanda Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               W.P.(C) No. 4924 of 2019

              Alak Nanda Devi, aged about 28 years, wife of Shri Shiv Narayan
              Shiv, resident of Shanti Niwas, Har Nasguttee Kitadih, P.O. & P.S.
              Parsudih (near East Plant School), Town Jamshedpur, District East
              Singhbhum (Jharkhand)                         ...     ...    Petitioner
                                        Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,
                 Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms,
                 Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
                 - Dhurwa, Ranchi
              2. Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, P.O. &
                 P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              3. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.
                 Mango, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhalbhumgarh, Jamshedpur, P.O.
                 & P.S. Dhalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              5. Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Mango, District East
                 Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              6. Chandra Bhushan Singh, son of name not known to the petitioner,
                 presently working and posted as Additional Deputy Collector,
                 Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka (Jharkhand)
              7. Alok Kumar Jaiswal, son of Late Motilal Jaiswal, resident of
                 Golpahari, near Jain Mandir, Parsudih, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih,
                 Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              8. Padma Jaiswal, wife of Sri Alok Kumar Jaiswal, resident of
                 Golpahari, near Jain Mandir, Parsudih, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih,
                 Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              9. Sunil Kumar Seth, Son of Jamuna Prasad Seth, resident of
                 Dispensary Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, Town
                 Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
              10.Sunita Seth, wife of Sri Sunil Kumar Seth, resident of Dispensary
                 Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, District -
                 East Singbhum (Jharkhand)            ...        ...      Respondents
                                        ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.9& 10: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr. SC I

---

09/17.10.2024 The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.9 & 10 are present.

2. It has been submitted that in spite of service of notice, the other private respondents are not appearing.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A. No.6401 of 2020 has been filed seeking amendment of the writ petition which is formal in nature inasmuch as there has been certain inadvertent typographical error in paragraph nos.33,35, and 36.

4. The learned counsel for the private respondent nos.9 & 10 does not dispute that those amendments are formal in nature.

5. Considering the submissions, I.A. No.6401 of 2020 is allowed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary insertion/amendment in the main writ petition in red ink during the course of the day.

7. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing / setting aside the order dated 29.8.2019 (Annexure - 13) passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder, learned Commissioner has been pleased to restore the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No.2284 of 2011-

12 and further be pleased to restore the order dated 5.3.2013 passed by the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No.2 of 2012-13, and further the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhalbhumgarh, Jamshedpur in Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014-15 and the order dated 14.6.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Mutation Revision Case No.2 of 2015-16 have been set aside; and

(ii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa and submitted that the order is wholly without jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the foundational background of the case as under: -

a) The land under Khata No.354 plot no.3772, 3778, 3779 was recorded in the name of Amar Singh, son of Lal Singh and upon his death, his wife executed a registered power of attorney on 08.01.2007 in favour of Subrato Dey. On the basis of registered power of attorney, two registered sale deed no.5634 dated

22.08.2009 and sale deed no.7690 dated 16.10.2007 were executed.

b) The petitioner being the purchaser, applied for mutation which was numbered as Mutation Case No.886 of 2008-2009. The application for mutation was rejected vide order dated 10.11.2008. An appeal was filed before Land Reforms Deputy Collector numbered as Mutation Appeal No.14 of 2008-2009. The appeal was disposed of and the matter was remitted to the court of Circle Officer for fresh consideration.

c) On remand, the Circle Officer passed the order dated 06.01.2010, and rejected the mutation application on the ground that land pertaining to Khata No.9 relates to "Adivasi khata". The order was challenged by the petitioner in Mutation Appeal No.37 of 2009-2010 before Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur. The mutation appeal was decided on 29.03.2012 whereby the order of the Circle Officer was set aside and the matter was again remanded for fresh consideration.

d) In the meantime, the same Circle Officer on 16.02.2012 allowed another Mutation Case No.2284 of 2011-2012 for plot pertaining to Khata No.9 and issued correction slip in favour of Harjeet Singh and he sold the property vide sale deed nos.7562, 7563, 7564 all dated 13.12.2012 in favour of Sunil Seth, Alok Kumar Jaiswal and Sunita Seth respectively.

e) It is further case of the petitioner that the Circle Officer refused to comply with the order dated 29.03.2012 wherein the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur had directed the Circle Officer to decide the Mutation Case No.886 of 2008-2009 afresh. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.2223 of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a civil review being Civil Review No.99 of 2013 seeking review of the order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.2223 of 2013. Vide order dated 29.01.2015, this Court was pleased to clarify that the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Circle

Officer by filing appeal under Section 15 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.

f) The petitioner filed appeal being Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014- 2015 challenging the order dated 16.02.2012 passed in Mutation Case No.2284 of 2011-2012, which was passed in favour of Harjeet Singh. The mutation appeal was allowed and the order of the Circle Officer mutating the property in favour of Harjeet Singh was set aside and a direction was issued to mutate the name of the petitioner and issue rent receipt. This happened vide order dated 28.08.2015 passed in Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014-2015.

g) Thereafter, Alok Kumar Jaiswal, Sunil Seth and Sunita Seth preferred Mutation Revision Case No.2 of 2015-2016 challenging the order dated 28.08.2015 passed in Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014-2015. The mutation revision was heard and dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2017 by the Additional District Commissioner, East Singhbhum, who affirmed the order passed in Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014-2015.

h) Being aggrieved with the order dated 02.03.2017, a Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2017 was filed and vide order dated 24.01.2018, Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolkata) Division, Chaibasa allowed the Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2017 and remanded the matter to the Collector-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur for fresh hearing. On remand, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur vide order dated 14.06.2019 dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order dated 28.08.2015 passed in Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014-2015.

i) On being aggrieved, Sunil Seth and others preferred Revenue Misc. Appeal No.28 of 2019 before the court of Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa and by the impugned order dated 29.08.2019, the learned Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa has confirmed the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No.2284 of 2011-2012, and the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Circle Officer in Miscellaneous Case No.2 of 2013 was

restored as valid. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa sets aside the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Mutation Appeal No.8 of 2014-15 and also the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Mutation Revision No.2 of 2015-2016.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved only by the order dated 29.08.2019 and has submitted that in W.P.(C) No.4802 of 2019 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and others), this Court has held that the Divisional Commissioner, (Kolhan) Division at Chaibasa has no jurisdiction to undertake adjudicatory role by referring to Section 28 of the aforesaid Act of 1973. He has submitted that the second revision was not maintainable before the said authority, and therefore, the order dated 29.08.2019 is wholly without jurisdiction as the said authority has taken up adjudicatory role, and on this short point, the impugned order be set aside.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.9 and 10 has not disputed the aforesaid proposition in connection with the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner, but submits that the rights may be reserved with the respondents to take appropriate steps in connection with the various orders by which the private respondents are aggrieved. He submits that the revision was filed before the Commissioner Singhbhum, (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa by the private respondents.

12. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4802 of 2019 (supra) decided on 09.07.2024, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Commissioner Singhbhum, (Kolhan) Division Chaibasa has no adjudicatory role, and therefore, the revision filed by the private respondents before the learned Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa seeking adjudication of dispute between

the parties was itself not maintainable. Paragraph 10 to 12 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under for ready reference: -

"10. In the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5526 of 2016, this Court has held in paragraphs 18 and 21 as follows:

"18. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that as per the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, the application for mutation is required to be filed before the "Circle Officer", the appellate authority is "Land Reforms Deputy Collector" and the revisional authority is the "Collector of the District". This Court further finds that there was a provision for second revision before the "Commissioner", which was subsequently deleted and admittedly the power of second revision is not available under the aforesaid Act of 1973.

19...

20...

21. This Court finds that the provisions of Section 28 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, Rule 3 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rule, 1958 and Section 270 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, are in connection with general superintendence regarding the functioning of the authorities under the Commissioner. This Court is of the considered view that the said provisions do not confer power upon the Commissioner to exercise power of second revision against the order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2016 by which the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, is wholly without jurisdiction, which is hereby set-aside."

11. Further, in the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Baldeo Dangi and others (Supra), the scope of section 28 of the Act of 1973 has been considered in paragraph 4 as follows:

"4. The question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. The jurisdiction of an authority/court to entertain a petition and decide the lis between the parties and provisions of appeal and revision are creature of statute. It is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties. A waiver on the part of the parties also cannot constitute jurisdiction upon the authority which otherwise is not competent to hear and decide the petition filed before it. The Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of records) Act, 1973 is a complete code in itself which provides an elaborate mechanism for deciding application filed for Mutation. The Act provides appeal under Section 15 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Section 16 of the Act provides that the Collector of District may for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of an order made under the Act, can entertain the petition and examine the record and pass appropriate order. In view of specific provision under Section 16 of the 1973 Act, conferring power of revision upon the Collector of the District, no other authority which has not been notified to exercise power under Section 16 of the Act, can entertain the petition. The reliance placed upon Section 28 of the Act is misconceived. Section 28 merely indicates the administrative control of the Collector, Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue over the Circle Officer and Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Section 18 is primarily intended at ensuring compliance of the Circle Officer and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector of the directions issued by the Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The said provision cannot be said to confer an adjudicatory power upon the Board of Revenue and to entertain an application purportedly under Section 16 of the Act."

12. This Court finds that by the impugned order the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division at Chaibasa has undertaken adjudicatory role by

referring to Section 28 of the Act of 1973. This Court has already held in earlier judgements that the 2nd revision is not maintainable and in view of the aforesaid judgments, the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division at Chaibasa in purported exercise of power under section 28 of the Act of 1973 which is in the nature of adjudication cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set-aside."

13. Consequently, on the aforesaid short point and without entering into the rival claims of the respective parties on the merits of their dispute, the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa is hereby set aside.

14. However, it is certainly open to the private respondents to take steps in connection with the orders, which have been set aside by the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, Singhbhum (kolhan) Division, Chaibasa.

15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of

16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/-