SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Jhk) 208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
Jagdeo Mahto ……. PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and others …RESPONDENTS
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2006
Decided on : 10/02/2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. Mr. V.K. Prasad, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, J.C. to G.P. – II
For the Respondent No.6:Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.8:Mr. Manjul Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate. Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 11—Mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings hence provision of section 11 would not be applicable—Cancellation of Jamabandi can be done only after giving prior notice and opportunity of hearing—Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Amareshwar Sahay, J. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2002 by which the learned Single Judge, disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the orders which were challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by relying on a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of “Sitaram Choubey Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1993(2) PLJR 255” held that creation of Jamabandi neither creates any right and title in favour of one or other nor cancellation of Jamabandi extinguishes right and title of actual owner and, therefore, the impugned orders will not affect the right and title of actual owner and further that the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. It was observed that the aggrieved person may move the Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief.

2.The facts in short are that the appellant/writ petitioner filed the aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2002 before this Court challenging the order dated 08.07.2001 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh as well as the Order dated 24.04.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh as also the Order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh whereby, Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner with respect to Plot No. 122 under Khata No. 69 situated in Village – Murramkalan, measuring 1.04 Acres, was ordered to be cancelled and Jamabandi was ordered to be opened in the name of Babulal Mahato, the original Respondent No. 5, who is now dead.

3.The case of the writ petitioner/appellant are that the lands of Khata No. 69 and 52 of Mouza Murramkalan were auction sold in execution of a rent decree against the recorded tenants, namely Sadhu Mahto and Bhairo Mahto and were purchased by the Ex-landlord Umraon Singh and others. Subsequently, the grand father of the appellant, namely, Guna Ram Koiri had been granted settlement of various lands on 13.11.1919 under Khata No. 69 comprised within Plot Nos. 122, 183, 184, 285 and 286, having total area of 2.01 Acres and Khata No. 52, comprised within Plot no. 162 measuring an area of 1.76 Acres in Mouza Murramkalan by the Ex-landlord Umraon Singh and others.

Pursuant to such settlement, the grand father of the appellant, who became the raiyat of the lands settled in his favour, paid rent to the ex-landlord. Subsequently, the Chhotanagpur Banking Association, by virtue of an auction sale, had purchased the proprietory interests of the ex-landlord and became the landlord so far as the grandfather of the appellant is concerned and thus, realised rent from him and on receipt of which executed rent receipts in favour of Guna Ram Koiri.

After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Chhotanagpur Banking Association had filed a return under the Bihar Land Reforms Act showing Guna Ram Koiri as its raiyat. After the vesting of the lands with the State Government, a Jamabandi was created in favour of Guna Ram Koiri and his name was entered in Register II and rent was realised from the said Raiyat by the erstwhile State of Bihar.

In the year 1956 – 57, Plot Nos. 285 and 286, Khata No. 69, measuring 69 decimals, were acquired for construction of Ramgarh Block. In exercise of their raiyati rights, the heirs of late Guna Ram Koiri had also sold Plot No. 182 and 183 of Khata No. 69 to one Inder Singh and others through a registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.1965, they got their names mutated and entered in Register-II.

Sometime in the year 1990, on the basis of a report of the Circle Amin, a proceeding being Misc. Case No. 2/1990 – 91 was initiated in respect of Khata No. 69 and 52 had been initiated which included the land in dispute. In the said proceeding notices were issued to the original respondent no. 5 namely Babulal Mahato (since deceased) pursuant to which he appeared and filed his objection and similarly, the appellant also appeared and the matter

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top