Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Prem Prakash Arya – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1105 of 2012
Decided On : 20.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Singh,J.C. to S.C.(Mines)
The main legal point established is that the cancellation of a Jamabandi under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 requires a separate proceeding if the initial proceeding is found unnecessary, and the failure to do so renders the cancellation legally infirm.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 4(h), Encroachment Case No. 17(III) of 1959-60 - Jamabandi/Holding No. 726 - Mutation Case No. 1361 of 2008-09 - Order dated 16.03.2012 suffers from serious infirmity in law. Once it has been held that proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was not necessary, a separate proceeding was required to be initiated, if permissible in law. However, the same has not been done and the Deputy Commissioner erroneously approved the recommendation for cancellation of Jamabandi.
Fact of the Case:
The land in dispute was settled in favor of the petitioner's father in 1945. The petitioner's father was found in peaceful possession, and the land was mutated in his name. After his death, the petitioner continued paying rent and taxes. A dispute arose when a purchaser applied for mutation, leading to a series of orders and appeals resulting in the cancellation of the Jamabandi in the petitioner's father's name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order cancelling the Jamabandi suffered from serious legal infirmity as the Deputy Commissioner erroneously approved the recommendation without initiating a separate proceeding as required by law.
Issues: The main issue was the cancellation of the Jamabandi in the petitioner's father's name and the legality of the proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once it was determined that a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was not necessary, a separate proceeding was required to be initiated, and the failure to do so rendered the cancellation of the Jamabandi legally infirm.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 16.03.2012 and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration.
Aggrieved by orders dated 05.05.2011 in Case No. 326 of 201011 and final order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad respondent no. 3, the present writ petition was filed. Subsequently, I.A. No. 1135 of 2015 was filed seeking amendment in the writ petition for challenging order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the said application was allowed vide, order dated 04.03.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case narrated in the writ petition are summerised thus;
(i) The land in dispute in the present proceeding is about 48 decimals comprised in Plot No. 860 (Part) under Khata No. 158 in MouzaDhanbad which was recored in the record of rights in the name of exlandlord namely, Jharia Raj. The subject land was settled by the exlandlord in or around 1945 in favour of the father of the petitioner namely, Jeewan Das Arya who came in peaceful possession over the said land and constructed house known as “Jeewan Sadan”. Encroachment Case No.17(III) of 195960 was initiated against the father of the petitioner under Bihar Public Lands Encroachment Act, 1953, in the proceeding of which a spot enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad. The father of the petitioner was found in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land and accordingly, vide order dated 29.05.1962, the Circle Officer, Dhanbad fixed rent @ Rs. 4 per Katha from the date of vesting. Consequently, Jamabandi/Holding No. 726 was created in the name of the father of the petitioner who paid rent vide receipt dated 12.06.1962. The subject land was mutated in the name of the father of the petitioner in Dhanbad Municipality and he paid taxes to the Municipality against valid receipt. After the death of his father in the year, 1990, the petitioner started paying rent to the Government of Bihar and thereafter, to the State of Jharkhand as also the Dhanbad Municipality. During his lifetime, the father of the petitioner sold a part of the subject land admeasuring 5.81 decimal to one Ranbir Kumar through registered saledeed dated 06.10.1967. The purchaser subsequently sold the said land to another person and finally, the land comprised in saledeed dated 06.10.1967 was sold to one Dharmendra Kumar Keshri vide saledeed dated 29.02.2008. The said Dharmendra Kumar Keshri made an application for mutation which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1361 of 200809. In the said case, the Circle Officer rejected the application for mutation vide order dated 16.08.2008 against which the said Dharmendra Kumar Keshri preferred Mutation Appeal No. 03 of 200809. The appeal preferred by Dharmendra Kumar Keshri was dismissed on 14.02.2009 by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad and by the said order, respondent no. 3 directed the Circle Officer to take steps for cancelling Jamabandi running in the name of the father of the petitioner. Notice dated 05.05.2011 was issued to the petitioner under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. However, vide order dated 27.04.2010, Revision No. 03 of 2009 preferred by the purchaser namely, Dharmendra Kumar Keshri was allowed. Order dated 20.01.2012 records that though photocopy of Jamabandi No. 726 notarized on 15.06.2011 from Delhi was produced by the petitioner however, the petitioner did not produce rent receipts. It is further recorded that the petitioner produced only 3 rent receipts dated 29.09.2010 and 06.09.2007 pertaining to 200708, 201011 and 201112. The plea taken by the petitioner that the land in question was settled by the exlandlord in the year, 1945 was disbelieved on the ground that order passed for mutation was not produced by the petitioner. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhanbad held that it was a case of encroachment and the father of the petitioner made false statement and got Jamabandi No. 726 created in his name. The SubDivisional Officer vide order dated 01.02.2012 recommended cancellation of Jamabandi created in the name of the father of the petitioner.
