Jharkhand High Court
Nandlal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.45 of 2025
-----
Nandlal Mahto, aged about 67 years, son of Late Ram Awatar
Mahto, resident of village-Labga, Koyari Tola, P.O.-Balkudra,
P.S. Basal, District-Ramgarh .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh.
3. The Circle Officer, Patratu.
4. Khageshwar Mahto, son of Late Ghanu Mahto @ Dhanu
Mahto, resident of village-Labga, Koyari Tola, P.O.-Balkudra,
P.S.-Basal, District-Ramgarh. .......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G.
-----
Order No.07 Date: 06.03.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order
dated 29th November, 2022 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ramgarh (respondent no. 2) in Miscellaneous
Case No. 65/2022 (Annexure -4), whereby the application filed
by the petitioner to provide security for demarcation of his land
appertaining to Khata No.9, Plot No.118 measuring an area
of area of 8.5 decimals and Khata No.9, Plot No.116 measuring
an area of area of 6 decimals situated at village- Labga, P.O.-
Balkurdra, Block- Patratu (hereinafter to be referred as the
"said land") as well as for construction of boundary wall over
the same has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for
issuance of direction upon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to
provide security during demarcation of the said land and
construction of boundary wall over the same, as the
respondent no.4 with the help of some anti-social elements is
creating disturbance to the petitioner over the said land with
respect to his peaceful possession.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of
the petitioner had purchased several plots of Khata No.9,
Village-Labga measuring total area of 2.63 acres in the name
of petitioner and his elder brother Triveni Mahto from one
Devaki Mahto vide sale deed no.1067 dated 27th March, 1957.
The said land was also mutated in the name of petitioner and
his elder brother and they paid rent to the Government for
which rent receipts were also issued in their names.
3. It is further submitted that one Dhanu Mahto @ Ghanu Mahto
started claiming the said land on the basis of a manufactured
sale deed said to be executed by the elder brother of the
petitioner Triveni Mahto in his favour on 11th December, 1959.
The petitioner having come to know about the said
manufactured sale deed, filed a title suit being Title suit No. 50
of 1994 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated
24th September, 1998 declaring the sale deed No.3740 dated
11th December, 1959 null and void.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the
Deputy Collector Land reforms, Hazaribagh for cancellation of
the Jamabandi running in the name of Ghanu Mahto @ Dhanu
Mahto or his legal heirs on the basis of forged sale deed
No.3740 dated 11th December, 1959 as the same was declared
null and void by the learned Munsif, Hazaribagh vide judgment
dated 24th September, 1998 passed in Title Suit No.50 of 1994.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh vide its order
dated 22nd August, 2007 passed in C.R.R. Case No. 05/2006-
07 cancelled the Jamabandi running in the name of Ghanu
Mahto @ Dhanu Mahto and others including the respondent
no.4-Khageshwar Mahto. The petitioner filed various
representations before the respondent-authorities including
the respondent no.2 for providing security so as to enable him
to get measurement of the said land done and the boundary
wall over the same be constructed. However, his
representations were not responded by the respondent no.2.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved with
the said situation filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2033
of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 28th June,
2022, directing the respondent no.2 to pass necessary order in
accordance with law after verifying the suit land personally.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.626
of 2022 against the respondent no.2 alleging wilful violation of
the order dated 28th June, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.2033 of
2020. In the said contempt case, the respondent no.2 came up
with the order 29th November, 2022 passed in Misc. Case No.
65 of 2022 and submitted that the said order was passed by
him in compliance of the order dated 28th June, 2022 passed
in W.P.(C) No.2033 of 2020. Thereafter, the said contempt
case was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to take
appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the
order dated 29th November, 2022 passed by the respondent
no.2 in Misc. Case No.65 of 2022.
7. It is also submitted that impugned order passed by respondent
no.2 is based on a cryptic report submitted by the respondent
no.3 vide its letter No. 2805 dated 10th October, 2022
mentioning inter alia that the said land was in possession of
the respondent no. 4 which was contrary to the earlier report
submitted by him. In fact the petitioner has been continuously
paying rent to the revenue authorities which suggests that he
is in possession of the said land. Moreover, though the
respondent no.4 had appeared before respondent no.2 in
Miscellaneous Case No.65 of 2022, however, he neither filed
any application claiming possession or title over the said land
nor filed any document to substantiate his possession over the
said land. The petitioner has the lawful right over his property
as guaranteed under Article-300A of the Constitution of India
and the respondent-authorities are legally bound to protect his
right.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits
that the respondent no.2 has rightly rejected the
representation of the petitioner filed for providing security to
demarcate the said land as well as to construct boundary wall
over the same as he has not been found in possession of the
same. It is further submitted that the revenue-authorities have
no power to deliver possession of land to anyone without order
of the competent court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
10. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the mutation running in the name of the petitioner
suggests his possession upon the said land and, thus, the
respondent no.2 was not right in denying security to the
petitioner for demarcation of the said land and for construction
of boundary wall over the same.
11. Pursuant to the order dated 28th June, 2020 passed in W.P.(C)
No.2033 of 2020, the respondent no. 2 initiated Misc. Case No.
65 of 2022, wherein a report was called from the respondent
no. 3. The respondent no.3 submitted his report vide letter
no.2805 dated 10th October, 2022 stating inter alia that the
petitioner was not found having physical possession of the said
land, rather the same was in possession of the respondent no.4
(Khageshwar Mahto). Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner
in the garb of seeking direction upon the respondent-State to
provide security for demarcation of the said land as well as
construction of boundary wall over the same, in fact, intends
to get delivery of physical possession of the said land which
can only be done by the order of a competent court of civil
jurisdiction.
12. It is further evident that after getting the decree in the Title
Suit No.50 of 1994, the petitioner had filed execution case,
however, the same was dismissed on the ground that the
decree was inexecutable in absence of any order with respect
to delivery of possession in the said title suit. Thus, even after
the order passed in Title Suit No.50 of 1994, the petitioner was
not delivered possession of the said land.
13. Even if the order passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 1994 has
attained finality, the same does not empower the revenue-
authorities to proceed for executing the said order by
delivering the possession of the said land in favour of the
petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that if the manner is
prescribed for doing a certain thing, then the same must be
done in that particular manner and not otherwise.
14. The revenue authorities cannot usurp power of the civil court
and to act as an executing court so as to order delivery of
possession of any property. An order for land demarcation can
only be passed by the revenue authorities when there is a
confusion or uncertainty regarding boundary of a piece of land,
however, in the garb of utilising that power, they cannot be
allowed to decide bona fide dispute of title and possession
between the parties related to any land.
15. In view of the discussions as made hereinabove, I do not find
any infirmity in the order dated 29th November, 2022 passed
by the respondent no.2, so as to interfere with the same in
exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
16. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent
court of civil jurisdiction seeking delivery of possession of the
said land in his favour.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Rohit/A.F.R.
