Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Uday Sinha and P.S.Mishra JJ.
Khiru Gope
Versus
Land Reforms Deputy Collector
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2297 of 1978 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 21, 1982
LAND REFORMS - SETTLEMENT OF LAND - JURISDICTION OF LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR - CANCELLATION OF JAMABANDI - VALIDITY - OCCUPANCY RIGHT - PRESUMPTION - RENT RECEIPTS - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners claimed possession of lands in Plot No. 2420, Khata No. 170 of Village Maura, Police Station Lakshmipur, District Manger. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 claimed settlement of 4 acres of land by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 2nd February, 1950, issued by the General Manager of the Wards Estate, Giddhaur. Petitioner No. 3 claimed inclusion of his name in the Register of Tenants and creation of Jamabandi No. 448 in his favor. Land Reforms Deputy Collector ordered fixation of rent and opening of Jamabandi in his name. Upon an application by Vijay Kant Jha alleging illegal occupation of Gairmazarua land, an inquiry was conducted, and notices were issued to the petitioners and other occupants. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 claimed they did not receive any notice. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, by an order dated 6th March, 1978, found their claims unfounded and cancelled their Jamabandi and Laggit. Petitioners challenged the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction or power to cancel the Jamabandi and remove the names of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the tenants register, as the effect was to cancel the settlement by the ex-intermediary in their favor. The court also held that the rent receipts granted to Petitioner No. 3 by the Karamachari and /or the rent fixation in his favor were not such acts which can be taken to conclude that his occupancy right has been cancelled by the State of Bihar.
Issues: 1. Whether the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi and remove the names of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the tenants register? 2. Whether the rent receipts granted to Petitioner No. 3 were sufficient to create a presumption of occupancy right?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Bench decisions of Harihar Singh V/s. The Additional Collector and others and Jamaluddin Ahmad V/s. The Subdivision Officer Khagaria to hold that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction or power to cancel the Jamabandi and remove the names of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the tenants register. 2. The court held that the rent receipts granted to Petitioner No. 3 were not sufficient to create a presumption of occupancy right, as there was no settlement in his favor and the rent receipts were granted without prejudice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and quashed the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated 6th March, 1978, in so far as it concerned them. The court rejected the application of Petitioner No. 3.
Prabha Shanker Mishra, J.
1. The petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui, dated the 6th March, 1978. The said order is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application.
2. All the petitioners have claimed that they have been in possession of their respective lands in Plot No. 2420, Khata No. 170 of Village Maura, Police Station Lakshmipur, District Manger. According to Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, they got a settlement of 4 acres of land by virtue of a Hukumnama dated the 2nd February, 1950, issued by the General Manager of the Wards Estate, Giddhaur. A copy of the said Hukumnama is Annexure 5 to the writ applications. According to them, the land was originally recorded as Gairmazarua Malik and when the intermediaries interests vested in the State of Bihar, pursuant to a notification, in the year 1952, the ex-intermediaries filed returns showing them as Raiyats and Jamabandi No, 362 was accordingly created in their favour. Their names were included in the Register of Tenants under the State of Bihar, and rent was realised from them by the State.
3. According to the case of Petitioner No. 3, his name was included in the Register of Tenants and Jamabandi No. 448 was created in his favour. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Jamui, ordered for fixation of rent in Rent Fixation Case No. 175 of 1962-63, as also for opening the Jamabandi in his name.
4. One Vijay Kant Jha, claiming to be a local leader, filed an application before the Block Development Officer of Lakshmipur, making certain allegations against the local Mukhiya, Hiraman Yadava, and others, and alleged that many persons had illegally occupied about 32-35 acres of Gairmazarua land of Khasra No. 2420 and sought intervention by the local authorities for the removal of such illegal occupations. Upon his application a local inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer of Lakshmipur, who submitted a report before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector of Jamui. After receipt of the said report of the Circle Officer, notices were issued to the persons found occupying the lands in Plot No. 2420, including the petitioners. A copy of the order directing for the issuance of the notices is Annexure 2 to the writ application.
5. The petitioners and other occupants of the lands in Plot No. 2420 were asked to show cause as to how had they obtained their respective lands. According to the petitioners only Petitioner No. 3 received the notice and appeared before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 3 of 1977-78, a case started upon the report of the Circle Officer. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have asserted that they did not receive any notice.
6. Petitioner No, 3 and other occupants of lands in Plot No. 2420 produced their documents, filed show cause petitions and were heard by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. By an order dated the 6th March, 1978, he, however, found that their claims were generally unfounded and based either upon illegal documents or misrepresentations. He accepted the claim of possession of Petitioner No. 3 upon 10 decimals of lands, vide Jamabandi No. 448, and cancelled the Jamabandi and consequently, the Laggit, in respect of 1.90 acres of land, out of the total area of 2 acres claimed by him. The entire claim of 4 acres of land of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was cancelled for the same very reasons by the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui, dated the 6th March, 1978, a copy of which is Annexure T to the writ application.
7. The petitioners have annexed some rent receipts to show that they have been paying rent, that Jamabandis stood in their names, and that they have been recognised as tenants in occupation of the lands claimed by them by the Revenue authorities, including Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there being Jamabandis opened in their names and rent realised from them by the respondents it was not open to the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
