Jharkhand High Court

Ranajoy Chandra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 April, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                          2025:JHHC:10437

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P.(C) No. 1794 of 2024
                             .........

Ranajoy Chandra, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Pradip Chandra, Resident of Munsefdanga, N.L. Ghosh Stree, Ward No.3, P.O.-Purulia, P.S. Purulia Sadar, District-Purulia, West Bengal. ..... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.

3. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District- Bokaro.

5. The Circle Officer, Chandankiary, P.O. & P.S.- Chandankiary, District-Bokaro.

6. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

7. Adalat Rajak, son of Late Nepal Rajak, aged about 49 years, resident of Village Majurdubih, P.O.Amdiha, P.S. Chandankiary, District-Bokaro. ..... Respondents .........

    CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                                    .......
        For the Petitioner           : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Adv
                                       Mr. Sunil Singh, Adv
        For the Resp.-State          : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, A.C to G.P.-III
        For the Intervenor           : Mr. Rohit Roy, Adv
                                            .........

C.A.V. ON 13/12/2024                        PRONOUNCED ON:04/04 /2025


   1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed the applicant to intervene

in the instant Writ application as a party respondent no.7 as he

is a necessary party.

2025:JHHC:10437

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner and official

Respondents does not have any serious objection.

Looking to averments made in the instant interlocutory

application, this application is allowed and as such the

applicant namely Adalat Rajak is made as party Respondent

no.7.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No.8397 stands disposed of. With

consent of the parties, the main application was heard.

5. The instant Writ application has preferred by the

Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the impugned order

dated 13.02.2024 passed in case no. 01/23-24 (Annexure-6) by

the 5th Respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner for

issuance of rent receipt in respect to the land in question has

been rejected on the erroneous ground and extraneous

consideration which is contrary to the findings with respect to

land in question in Title Suit no-6/2 of 1971/73 wherein the

suit has been decreed in favour of the predecessor of Petitioner

by the Competent Civil Court.

Petitioner further prays for issuance for a direction

upon the concerned Respondent for issuance of rent receipt in

respect to the land in question forthwith.

6. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the land

in question relates to Khata No-145 appertaining to Khewat no.

2025:JHHC:10437

26 of village Majurdubhi, Thana-Chandankiyari, wherein total

area 52.55 Acres are ancestral property of the Petitioner which

was obtained by his grandmother namely Smt. Satadal

Chandra by way of permanent settlement through registered

deed of indenture dated 22.09.1951.

After knowing the fact that the State of Bihar made

settlement of land in question in favour of 13 persons; then the

grandmother of the petitioner preferred Title Suit no-6 of 1971

against the State of Bihar & others. The Title Suit no. 6/2 of

1971/73 was decreed in favour of Petitioner's grandmother vide

Judgment dated 28.02.1973 wherein the learned Court held

that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against the

defendant no.1 (State of Bihar) and decreed ex-parte without

cost so far defendants no. 2 to 14 are concerned.

Learned Trial Court held that the title of Plaintiff no.1

to the suit land described in Schedule "A" is hereby declared

and her possession over the same is confirmed. Defendants are

also permanently injuncted from taking possession over the

schedule "B" land.

Accordingly, decree was prepared and signed on

06.03.1973. Rent for the aforesaid plot was thereafter being

paid regularly by father of the Petitioner which is evident vide

rent receipt dated 17.08.2014. But thereafter, the Respondent

authorities stopped issuing the rent receipt. Pursuant thereto;

2025:JHHC:10437

father of the petitioner namely Pradip Chandra vide letter dated

11.07.2017 made request to the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari

for acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt and after the

demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner made a

representation before the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari, Bokaro

vide his letter dated 03.02.23 for issuance of rent receipt and

mutation of his name in revenue record.

Since no decision was taken by the respondent

authorities, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no.

W.P.C no. 1413/2023 before this Court and this Court disposed

of the writ petition with a liberty to the Petitioner to prefer a

fresh representation on the present issue before the 5th

Respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed fresh representation

dated 18.05.23, however when no order was passed by the

respondents on the representation filed by the petitioner, hence

he preferred a Contempt Case no. 654/2023 before this Court.

Thereafter the 5th Respondent passed impugned order;

whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Hence this

Writ application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order passed by the 5th Respondent is an

unreasoned order and in contrary to the findings with respect

to land in question in Title Suit no-6/2 of 1971/73 wherein the

suit has been decreed in favour of the predecessor of Petitioner

2025:JHHC:10437

by Competent Civil Court and the concerned Respondent has

not applied his mind before passing the impugned order in

rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the action of

the respondent to not mutate the name of the petitioner in

revenue record is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

He further submits that the Revenue authorities has no

jurisdiction to take a stand contrary to the Competent Civil

Court and go beyond and review the decree passed by

Competent Civil Court which has attained finality in the year

1973 itself. He further submits that the action of respondents'

authority by not accepting the rent in respect to the land in

question will amount to loss of State Exchequer or revenue

when there is valid declaration of Title and confirmation of

possession vide judgment dated 28.02.1973 passed in Title Suit

no-6/2 of 1971/73; as such, the impugned order be quashed

and the concerned respondent be directed to accept the rent

and issue rent receipt in respect of land in question.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent after relying into

its counter affidavit submits that impugned order dated

13.02.2024 was passed after going through the judgement and

decree passed in Title Suit no. 6/2 of 1971/73 and in the

impugned order it is a specifically mentioned that plot wise area

has not been mentioned as claimed by the writ petitioner. He

further submits that Petitioner has not mentioned plot wise

2025:JHHC:10437

area in his writ petition as plot wise area is necessary for

issuance of rent receipt.

He further submits that the claim of the writ

petitioner is over 52.55 Acres but in what plot and what area of

land has been settled, it is nowhere mentioned in the writ

petition and it is the Petitioner who has to disclose the specific

area of each and every plot which are settled to the writ

petitioner so that rent receipt may be issued for the specific

area, inasmuch as, the total area of land mentioned in

Schedule-A of the decree in the title suit comes to 42.99 acres;

however, petitioner claim as per writ application is for 52.5

acres.

9. Learned counsel for the official respondents further

submits that the land of Mouza Majurdubhi Plot no. 735 is

notified as protected forest land Under Section 29 of Indian

Forest Act, 1927 dated 09 July 1958 and the said notification is

still is in existence and the said notification has not been

challenged in Title Suit no. 6/2 of 1971/1973 by the Plaintiffs,

predecessor of the writ petitioner, and therefore it is not

possible to make entry of the said plot in Register II in favour of

Writ petitioner as such no relief should be granted to petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the 7th Respondent submits that

some portion of plot no 737 and plot no.787 were settled in

favour of his father-late Nepal Chandra Rajak by way of

2025:JHHC:10437

Bandobasti agreement after the implementation of Bihar Land

Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that the Title Suit

No.6/2 of 1971/73 is a collusive decree and by virtue of this

decree, neither Smt. Satadal Chandra nor his successors ever

came into possession over the land in question which has been

in peaceful possession of late Nepal Chandra Rajak, the father

of the intervenor and the said decree is never binding upon

them; as such no relief should be granted to the petitioner.

11. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and after

going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits

it transpires that by a registered deed of Indenture dated

22.09.1951, grandmother of Petitioner namely Smt. Satadal

Chandra took permanent settlement of the tenure right of 52.55

acres of land under the said khata no. 145, appertaining to

khewat no. 26 of the same village from 16 annas Malik of

Mouza Majurdubhi on payment of a salami of Rs. 4354/- and

on annual rental of Rs. 77.75 P. Subsequently, after knowing

the fact that State of Bihar made settlement of land in question

in favour of 13 persons; the grandmother of the Petitioner

preferred Title Suit no-6 of 1971 against the State of Bihar &

others which was decreed in her favour vide Judgment dated

28.02.1973 and thereafter rent for the above said plot was fixed

and being paid regularly even by father of the Petitioner after

the demise of the original Raiyat which is evident vide rent

2025:JHHC:10437

receipt dated 17.08.2014.

However, thereafter, the Respondent authority

stopped issuing the rent receipts. Thereafter, father of the

Petitioner namely Pradip Chandra vide letter dated 11.07.2017

and after his demise the petitioner made a representation

before the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari, Bokaro vide his letter

dated 03.02.23 for acceptance of Rent and issuance of Rent

Receipt after mutating his name in Revenue Record. Since no

decision was taken by the concerned respondent, the petitioner

preferred a Writ Petition bearing no. W.P.C no. 1413/2023

before this Court. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the

5th Respondent rejected the claim of the Petitioner by passing

an order dated 13.02.2024.

12. To decide this case two issues are involved to be

adjudicated by this Court:

(i) Whether the Petitioner has a valid title over 52.5 acre of land?

(ii) Whether a decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Authorities?

13. To decide the 1st issues, it is necessary to peruse the

Judgment passed the by learned Trial Court. For brevity,

relevant para of the judgement passed in the Title Suit no. 6/2

of 1971/73 is extracted hereinbelow: -

18 ......." As such, it is held that the plaintiff no. 1 has got a subsisting title to the schedule 'A' land. Her possession over the same is also confirmed. And accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff no. 1. It is also held that as plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 failed to prove

2025:JHHC:10437

their title to the suit land and therefore they are non-suited."

23..............that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against defendant no. 1 and decreed ex parte without cost so far defendants 2 to 14 are concerned. The title of plaintiff no.1 to the suit land described in Schedule 'A' is hereby declared and her possession over the same is confirmed. Defendants are also permanently injuncted from taking possession over Schedule 'B' land............."

After perusing the aforesaid judgement, it is crystal

clear that the learned Trial Court held that the petitioner's

grandmother has got a subsisting title. Against the aforesaid

judgment, no appeal was preferred by the State of Bihar or the

Private Respondents which is evident from para 11 of its

counter affidavit filed by the official Respondents wherein it has

been stated after due search no official record is available at the

office of 5th Respondent (Circle Officer, Chandankiyari) to

suggest whether any appeal has been filed against the said

Judgment and decree before the learned District Judge

Dhanbad or before this High Court at that time as Judgment

and decree is very old, more than 50 years ago.

Hence, the said decree passed in Title Suit has

attained finality and so far as Respondents' contention with

regard of factual aspect with regard to area of land can be very

well raised in Title Suit where they were already made party.

Hence, first issue is decided in favour of petitioner.

14. For the second issue, though it is now well settled

that a decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue

Authorities; however, it is profitable to peruse the judgement

passed in the case of Amrit Mahto vs State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:10437

and Others1; wherein Division Bench of this Court has held as

under:

"5................ Under the scheme of the Jharkhand Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, a decree of the Court is binding on the mutation authority. In "Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr." (2007) 6 SCC 186 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"9. ... It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). ...." (Emphasis supplied)

By going through the aforesaid judgement, it is

crystal clear that title can only be decided by competent Civil

Court and decree of Civil Court is binding upon the mutation

authority and as such second issue is also decided in favour of

petitioner.

15. So far as ground taken in the impugned order that

Majurdubhi Plot no. 735 is notified as protected forest land

Under Section 29 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 vide gazette dated

09 July 1958 is concerned; District Forest officer, Purulia has

already settled some part i.e. 9.9 acres out of 22.50 acres in

the name of father in law of the grandmother of the Petitioner in

the year 1948-49 and as such the contention that gazette

notification has retrospective effect is also not tenable in the eye

of law.

16. It further transpires from the pleadings that Rent for

the said plot was regularly paid initially by the original settle,

2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1897