Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:15631]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1642 of 2011
1(i) Panwa Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of Late
Mithu Sao
1(ii) Dhaneshwar Sao, aged about 47 years
1(iii) Ashok Sao, aged about 39 years
1(iv) Lalji Sao, aged about 45 years
1(v) Guna Devi, aged about 43 years
1(vi) Kanchan Devi, aged about 41 years
All sons and daughter of Late Mithu Sao,
resident of Village-Pakarkar, P.O. and P.S.-
Katkamsandi, District-Hazaaribagh.
2. Ruplal Sao, son of Late Barhan Teli, resident of
Village-Pakarkar, P.O. and P.S.-Katkamsandi,
District-Hazaaribagh.
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
2(i) Raj Kumar Singh
2(ii) Satyendra Singh
2(iii) Chanchala Devi
2(iv) Sunita Devi
2(v) Nitu Devi
All sons and daughter of Late Loknath
Singh and Residents of Village Sadanpur, PO-
Sultana, PS-Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh.
3. Dashrath Singh, son of Prayag Singh
4(i) Ayodhya Singh
4(ii) Aabadh Singh
4(iii) Dilip Singh
4(iv) Vidya Singh
All sons of Late Surendra Singh
4(v) Babloo Singh, S/o of Late Raj Kumar Singh,
-1-
[2025:JHHC:15631]
grand son of Late Surendra Singh
All are the residents of Village
Sadanpur, PO- Sultana, PS-Katkamdag, District-
Hazaribagh.
5. Dharma Raj Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh
6(i) Gaya Prasad Singh, Son of Late Kedar Singh
6(ii) Binod Singh, Son of Late Kedar Singh
Both resident of village-Paprar, P.S.-
Satgama, P.S.-Katkamdag, District-Hazaribagh.
6(iii) Shanti Devi, daughter of Late Kedar Singh,
W/o Mithilesh Singh, resident of Village-Ambajit,
P.S. and P.s.-Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh.
7. Basant Singh, Son of Late Tulsi Singh
8. Gajendra Prasad Singh
9. Sagar Singh,
Both sons of Late Ram Dular Singh
10. Ashok Singh, son of Late Kamakshya Singh
11(i) Ramesh Singh
11(ii) Ganesh Singh
11(iii) Gita Devi
All sons and daughter of Late Nand Kishore
Singh, residents of Village Sadanpur, PO- Sultana,
PS-Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh.
12(i) Viaksh Singh
12(ii) Mahesh Singh
12(iii) Most. Manju
12(iv) Rina Devi
All sons and daughters of Late Lalchan Singh,
residents of Village Sadanpur, PO- Sultana, PS-
Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate.
[2025:JHHC:15631]
: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. M.K. Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I.
For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 13 : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate.
------
29/ 13.06.2025 Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners, Mr. M.K. Ekka, learned A.C. to S.C.-I appearing for the
State and Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 2 to 13 as well as the legal heirs of respondent Nos. 2,
4, 11 and 12.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2010, passed
in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008 [Loknath Singh & Ors. Versus Mithu
Sao & Anr.], whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag has been
pleased to set aside the order of the DCLR, Hazaribagh in Misc.
Revenue Case No. 14 of 2007-08 dated 13.03.2008 between the same
parties.
3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners namely Barhan Teli
reclaimed lands of 10 acres, in Plot No. 1221 in Khata No. 40 and 5
acres in Plot No. 1354 under Khata No. 185 of village Pakrar, P.S.-
Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh with permission of the Ex-landlord
of village namely Sadhu Singh. He submits that the land was measured
by the Amin of the Ex-landlord and being satisfied, the said landlord
settled the aforesaid land under a registered Patta bearing Deed No.
4059 dated 27.10.1945 and put the said Barhan Teli in physical
possession of the same. He further submits that the character of the
lands of Khata Nos. 40 and 185 of village-Pakrar, P.S.-Katkamsandi,
District-Hazaribagh were recorded as Gair-majarua-khas of the Malik
[2025:JHHC:15631]
i.e. of the Zamindar in the cadastral survey and was fit for reclamation
and settlement by the ex-landlord of village-Pakrar, Hazaribagh. He
then submits that the said land remained outside of the forest
demarcation area even after the vesting of the Estate of Zamindars in
the State of Bihar in the year 1952 and petitioners' father i.e. Barhan
Teli continued to cultivate the same and raise, produce and appropriate
the produce.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that after the death of their
father, petitioners came into possession of the said lands and the ex-
landlords also died, but the State did not mutate the lands in the names
of the petitioners, although applications for mutation were filed and
documents were submitted by the father of the petitioners, which were
also inspected by the Anchal Officials, C.O. and Halka Karamchari. In
these backgrounds, he submits that the land in question was in
possession of the petitioners, however, a petition was filed by the
private respondents herein before the Circle Officer and the said Circle
Officer sat over the matter and not passed any order and thereafter the
private respondents moved before the DCLR in Misc. Revenue Case
No. 14 of 2007-08, in which, the DCLR has called upon a report from
the Circle officer and the report was there of possession in favour of the
petitioners and thereafter the LRDC by the order dated 13.03.2008 has
been pleased to allow the petition in favour of the petitioners herein. He
submits that the said impugned order 13.03.2008 of the DCLR was
challenged by the private respondents before the Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribagh, in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008, wherein the Deputy
Commissioner by order dated 23.02.2010 has been pleased to set aside
[2025:JHHC:15631]
the order of the LRDC and directed to mutate the name in favour of the
private respondents herein. The Deputy Commissioner has further
observed that the dispute can be settled by the competent civil court. He
then submits that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the said order
without jurisdiction, as he has no authority to pass the said order. He
submits that the possession was in favour of the petitioners and in view
of that the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly passed the said order.
5. On the point of jurisdiction, he relied in the case of Shyam
Bihari Prasad & Ors. Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors. decided
on 30.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 3168 of 2011. On the same line, he
further relied in the case of Dipan Ram Versus State of Jharkhand &
Ors., reported in 2002(1) JLJR 616 and also in the case of Smt. Bela
Pandey Versus The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 SCC
OnLine Pat 565. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the
Deputy Commissioner has wrongly passed the said order, as he has no
jurisdiction to pass the said order and only the possession is required to
be looked into and further the possession was there in favour of the
petitioners, as such, the order of the Deputy Commissioner may kindly
be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits
that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order and wrong
submission was made before the Deputy Commissioner by the State
counsel that the SDO is having the power of mutation. He submits that
the Deputy Commissioner has rightly considered this aspect of the
matter that the private respondents are having the registered deed of the
land in question, in view of that he has rightly passed the said order.
[2025:JHHC:15631]
7. Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the
petition was filed before the DCLR by the private respondents and on
this petition, the wrong order has been passed by the DCLR in favour
of the petitioners herein, which was challenged before the Deputy
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner finding the fact that the
private respondents have purchased the lands in question 70 years back
by a registered deed dated 16.11.1954 from the ancestor of the
petitioners and in view of that he has passed the said order. He submits
that the Circle Officer has found the possession of the private
respondents herein and not of the petitioners herein. He submits that if
the wrong order has been passed by the DCLR in light of the
arrangement made in The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of
Records) Act, 1973, the Deputy Collector / Deputy Commissioner is the
authority to test the order of the DCLR. On these grounds, he submits
that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the said order.
8. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, the court has gone through the
materials available on record including the impugned orders. It is an
admitted position in light of the discussions made by the DCLR and the
Deputy Commissioner that the private respondents have purchased the
lands in question in the year 1954 itself from the ancestors of the
petitioners herein. The private respondents herein have filed a petition
before the Circle Officer for mutating the land in question, however no
order was passed, thereafter private respondents moved before the
DCLR in Misc. Revenue Case No. 14 of 2007-08, in which, the DCLR
[2025:JHHC:15631]
has passed the order for mutating the land in favour of the petitioners,
which was challenged by the private respondents before the Deputy
Commissioner in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008. The Deputy
Commissioner by the impugned order dated 23.02.2010 has noted the
submissions of all the sides and has come to the conclusion that the
land in question was purchased by the ancestors of the private
respondents herein in the year 1954 i.e. 70 years back from the
ancestors of the petitioners herein and found that if the land in question
is transferred by a registered deed, the mutation is required to be made
in favour of the private respondents. The Deputy Commissioner has
further found that if such a dispute is there, that can be decided by the
competent civil court and in view of that he has found that the order of
the DCLR was without jurisdiction and as such, the said order was set
aside by the Deputy Commissioner.
9. In the case Jamila Begum Vrs. Shami Mohd., reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a
registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly
executed and that it is for the party challenging the genuineness of the
transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. Therefore,
the it is clear that that there is a statutory presumption of validity of a
duly executed registered deed and the onus is on the person who denies
the same and it is to be proved in the proceedings of the original suit.
Thus, this Court concludes that a revenue Court has to presume the
validity and genuineness of a duly registered sale deed.
10. Further in the case of Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd.
Vrs. S.P. Velayutham, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 210, the Hon'ble
[2025:JHHC:15631]
Supreme Court has held that only the competent Civil Court has
jurisdiction to examine validity of a registered sale deed and if a party
questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a
person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy
will only be to go to the civil Court. Therefore, this Court reiterated that
only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the validity of a
registered deed conferring title over a land to another person.
11. In view of the deed and the dispute herein with regard to the
possession and both the parties are contending that both are in
possession and further the deed is in favour of the private respondents
and if such dispute is there, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held
that such dispute can be decided by the competent court of civil
jurisdiction.
12. So far as the contention of Mr. Sahay, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction of the
Deputy Commissioner is concerned in light of the provisions made in
The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the
mutations cases are required to be disposed of by the Circle Officer in
light of Section 14 of the said Act, against the said order, appeal is
provided under Section 15 of the said Act before the Land Reforms
Deputy Collector (DCLR) and further against the order of the LDRC,
the revision power is there before the Deputy Collector / Deputy
Commissioner under Section 16 of the said Act.
13. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the order has been passed
by the DCLR and the next higher authority is the Deputy Commissioner
and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised his power. In view
[2025:JHHC:15631]
of that the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to test the
order of the DCLR. The nomenclature of the case merely registering the
case in the form of appeal cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner
has wrongly exercised his power, in view of that this court is not in
agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners.
14. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Sahay, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Dipan Ram (Supra)
is concerned, in that case, the co-ordinate bench of this court has held
that the circle officer is only required to see the possession and he is
required to examine the sale deed. Thus, that judgment is not in dispute
and the possession in the present case is itself in dispute in light of the
submissions of both the sides herein. Further the judgment relied by Mr.
Sahay, learned senior counsel in the case of Smt. Bela Pandey (Supra),
the facts of that case is of purchase of the land by the sale deed and
possession and in view of that the Division Bench has held that she is in
possession, in view of that the said order has been passed. The facts of
that case are also distinguishable in the facts of the present case. The
case relied by Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel in the case of Shaym
Bihari Prasad & Ors. (Supra), it has been rightly held by the co-
ordinate bench of this court that the order is passed under Section 15 of
The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 that
can be assailed before the Deputy Commissioner. So far as the case in
hand is concerned, the power is exercised under Section 15 of The
Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, and in
view of that it has been rightly assailed before the Deputy
[2025:JHHC:15631]
Commissioner, under Section 16 of The Bihar Tenants Holdings
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.
15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court
finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this
petition is dismissed.
16. In light of the observations made by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh, the parties are put at liberty to move before
the competent court having the civil jurisdiction.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
