Jharkhand High Court
Rudo Devi vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 18 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6488 of 2023
1. Rudo Devi, w/o Sri Chandradeo Singh, aged about 52 years, r/o
Village Pindarcone, P.O. & P.S. Gidaur, Dist. Chatra
2. Most. Baby Devi, w/o Late Manoj Singh, aged about 31 years, r/o
Village Chainpur, P.O. & P.S. Rajpur, Dist. Chatra
3. Rambriksh Prasad Yadav, s/o Sri Sukar Yadav, aged about 38 years,
r/o Village Kurkutta, P.O. & P.S. Gidaur, Dist. Chatra
4. Om Prakash Verma, s/o Sri Jai Prakash Dangi, aged about 40 years
5. Ram Prakash Verma, s/o Sri Jai Prakash Dangi, aged about 37 years
Nos. 4 & 5 r/o Village Unta, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Chatra ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
Dist. Ranchi
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra, P.O., P.S. &
Dist. Chatra
3. District Sub-Registrar, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Chatra
4. Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra, North Forest Division, P.O., P.S. &
Dist. Chatra ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I
-----
06/18.09.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will not rely on
the pages which have been demanded by the office as typed copies.
2. In view of his such submission, the prayer made in I.A. No.8256 of
2024 is allowed.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.8256 of 2024 is disposed of.
4. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the State.
5. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing the Circular
No.930, dated 21.09.2016 issued under the signature of the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of
Jharkhand, whereby, in utter disregard and defiance of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2016 (10) SCC 795, the
Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.2) has given the authority to the
Deputy Commissioners to cancel sale deed which appears to be registered
on the basis of false documents or by playing fraud or impersonation, which
comes only within the domain of Civil Court. The further prayer is made for
quashing the order dated 17.03.2023 (signed on 20.05.2023) passed in Sale
Deed Cancellation Case No.34/2021-22 by which respondent no.2 has
cancelled the Sale Deed Nos.2856/2021 and 2858/2021 without any
jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands
including those situated in Village Bhaipur, Pargana Ahuri, P.S. Chatra, P.S.
No.119, Tauji No.28, Hal Khewat No.1 under Khata No.18, Plot No.173, Area
4.60 acres is recorded in the name of Ramgulel Singh. The same is duly
reflected in the Khatian as also the Online Khatian, contained in Annexure-1
series. He further submits that Ramgulel Singh came in ownership and
possession of the aforesaid lands and his name is duly mutated in
Register-II and is paying rent to the Government, contained in Annexure-2
series. He also submits that Ramgulel Singh died leaving behind two sons-
Tilakdhari Singh and Dasrath Singh and both jointly inherited the aforesaid
property and came in ownership and possession thereof and rent was paid
in the name of Ramgulel Singh. Tilakdhari Singh came in ownership and
possession of 2.30 acres of the aforesaid land. He then submits that
Tilakdhari Singh died leaving behind three daughters- Rudo Devi, Rupa Devi
and Sita Devi. He submits that the descendants of Dasrath Singh sold part
of the aforesaid land of 40 decimals to Kashi Bhuiyan vide registered Sale
Deed No.6257 dated 14.12.2004. Kashi Bhuiyan sold 4 decimals of land to
Arvind Kumar Pandey vide Sale Deed No.4579 dated 11.07.2007. Kashi
Bhuiyan sold further 12 decimals of land to Smt. Savitri Devi vide Sale Deed
No.5040, dated 30.07.2007. He further submits that Khata No.18 comprises
of three plots i.e. Plot Nos.148, 149 and 173, total area 6 acres 29 decimals,
out of which, purchase of 12 decimals of land got his name mutated in the
concerned Register-II and accordingly mutation is still running in the name
of Ramgulel Singh for 6 aces 17 decimals of land. He then submits that in
exercise of their right of ownership and possession of lands, petitioner nos.
1 and 2 sold part of their lands i.e. 24 decimals of land to petitioner no.3
vide Sale Deed No.2856, which was presented for registration on
04.10.2021 and the same was duly executed and registered by respondent
no.3 on 05.10.2021, contained in Annexure-4. He submits that petitioner
no.2 also sold 76 decimals of land to petitioner nos. 4 and 5 vide Sale Deed
No.2858, which was presented for registration on 04.10.2021 and the same
was duly executed and registered by respondent no.3 on 05.10.2021,
contained in Annexure-5. He submits that suddenly the petitioners received
notice of initiation of Sale Deed Cancellation Case No.34/2021-2022 from
the office of respondent no.2, thereafter, the petitioners enquired the
matter, wherein, it was informed that the aforesaid Sale Deed
Nos.2856/2021 and 2858/2021 have been registered on the basis of letter
dated 07.09.2021 given by respondent no.4 to respondent no.3 and on
enquiry, it was revealed that the said letter dated 07.09.2021 is a forged
letter. He submits that all the exercise for cancellation of sale deed was
done by respondent no.2, who is having no jurisdiction. He submits that
once the sale deed is executed, only the competent Civil Court can pass any
appropriate order and it is well settled. He refers the judgment passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3103 of 2020 and
analogous cases, whereby, the Circular which is under challenge in this writ
petition, has already been quashed and consequential action with regard to
cancellation of sale deed is also quashed. He submits that the case of the
petitioners is fully covered in light of the said judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is allegation of
forging of letter and in view of that, FIR has also been registered against
the petitioners. He submits that the land in question is forest land, however,
he does not dispute that the said Circular is already quashed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that so far as the power of
cancellation of sale deed is concerned, that is already set at rest in view of
the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ
petitions.
8. In view of the above, it transpires that the case of the petitioners is
fully covered in light of the above judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioners.
9. Once the Circular is being issued by the Government, it is required to
be issued in light of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India, as it is not in
the name of the Governor, but under the signature of the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and considering all
these aspects, the Coordinate Bench has decided the aforesaid writ
petitions.
10. As such, the order dated 17.03.2023 (signed on 20.05.2023) passed
in Sale Deed Cancellation Case No.34/2021-22, contained in Annexure-6, by
which, respondent no.2 has cancelled the Sale Deed Nos.2856/2021 and
2858/2021 is, hereby, quashed. So far as the Circular No. 930, dated
21.09.2016 contained in Annexure-7 is concerned, that has already been
quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ
petitions.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
