[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ... vs Jagarnath Maji S/O Late Chittiz Maji on 12 January, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 138 of 2019
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. through its General Manager Mugma Area,
Eastern Coalfield Lt. at & P.O. Mugma P.S. Nirsa Distt- Dhanbad
... ... Defendant No.2/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
1. Jagarnath Maji S/o Late Chittiz Maji, R/o Sasanberia, P.O. & P.S.
Nirsa, Distt- Dhanbad.
2. Jitu Pal, S/o Late Kali Pado Pal, R/o Sasanberia, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa,
Distt- Dhanbad
... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
3. Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar through Circle Officer, Nirsa P.O. &
P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad.
... ... Defendant No.1/Respondent/
Respondent No.3
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 1 : None
For the Resp. No. 3-State : None
---
17/12.01.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 [Jitu Pal] is present.
3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 - Jagarnath
Maji and respondent no.3 - State of Jharkhand.
4. This appeal has been filed under section 87(2) of the
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CNT
Act") against the judgment dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
32 of 2016 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has affirmed the
order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned Revenue Officer,
Dhanbad in Case No. 313 of 2010.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned
1st appellate court has failed to consider that the present appellant is in
possession of the suit property. He has submitted that in the record-of-
right, illegal possession of the present appellant has already been
recorded. The present appellant was defendant no. 2 in the suit.
2026:JHHC:719
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that before
the learned 1st appellate court, a map of the Lakhi Mata Colliery was
filed to show that the land in question was in the possession of the
appellant. He has submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been
properly considered.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
finds that Jagarnath Maji and Jitu Pal had filed petition seeking
rectification of record-of-rights wherein the property was recorded in
the name of State of Jharkhand and was shown in the possession of the
present appellant.
8. The plaintiffs claimed the suit property by virtue of the three
registered sale-deeds of the year 2004, 2006 and 2008 and they also
claimed that the mutation was also carried out in their name and rent
receipts were also issued and Jamabandi was also created in their
name.
9. The defendants in the suit opposed the prayer. However, the
learned Revenue Officer, by referring to the documents produced by
the plaintiffs, recorded that the property is the raiyati property of the
plaintiffs and also recorded that the defendant no. 2 could not produce
any document to show that the property belongs to the defendant no. 2
and that the raiyat has been paid compensation for the property.
Consequently, the Revenue Officer directed that the name of the State
of Jharkhand be deleted from the record-of-rights and also directed
that the illegal possession of the defendant no. 2 be also deleted.
10. Aggrieved with the order of the Revenue Officer, the State of
Jharkhand did not prefer any appeal. However, the defendant no. 2
preferred an appeal which was numbered as Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 32 of 2016.
11. From the perusal of the impugned judgment passed in Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2016, it appears that the specific case
of the defendant no. 2 before the 1st appellate court was that the land
in question was in effective possession of the defendant no. 2 and the
learned Revenue Officer had not considered the provisions of the Coal
Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 and it was argued that the revenue
2026:JHHC:719
officer had wrongly relied upon the sale-deeds and the rent receipts,
which were alleged to be sham and collusive documents.
12. However, the learned 1st appellate court recorded that the
defendant no. 2/the appellant suppressed the fact that the appellant had
already instituted a Title Suit No. 124 of 2017 against Jagarnath Maji
and Jitu Pal during the pendency of the appeal wherein the appellant
had claimed declaration of their title and confirmation of possession
and in the said case, a prayer for injunction was also rejected vide
order dated 18.09.2017.
13. The 1st appellate court ultimately recorded that the long
Jamabandi cannot be cancelled unless fraud and misrepresentation has
been established while opening the Jamabandi. The learned court also
recorded that Jamabandi was already opened in the name of the
plaintiffs which was never cancelled by the State and ultimately, the
Court recorded that the judgment passed by the learned Revenue
Officer did not suffer from any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety.
14. This Court is of the view that admittedly Title Suit No. 124 of
2017 filed by the present appellant against Jagarnath Maji and Jitu Pal
is still pending and the appellant has claimed title as well as
possession over the property. So far as the impugned judgment is
concerned, this Court does not find any illegality calling for any
interference and certainly the pending suit being Title Suit No. 124 of
2017 will be decided in accordance with law.
15. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
17. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned
through 'FAX/email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Order: 12.01.2026
Pankaj
Date of Uploading: 16.01.2026
