Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 1618
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
VIRENDER SINGH, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand - Appellants
Versus
Syed Shahab Ahmed, son of Late S. M. Ahmed - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 258 of 2016 with I.A. No. 3439 of 2016
Decided On : 01-08-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, J.C. to G.P. V.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State cannot doubt the genuineness of an entry made in the revenue records based on errors committed by its officials and must take action against guilty officers before initiating proceedings against an occupier.
Headnote:
Rent Receipts - Land Dispute - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - [Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950] - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and its application to the disputed land. It highlighted the issue of rent receipts, mutation of land records, and the authority's power to cancel Jamabandi and rent receipts.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-writ petitioner approached the Court when the Circle Officer refused to grant rent receipts to him for the land purchased by his father. The appellant-State of Jharkhand filed a counter-affidavit asserting that the land in question stands recorded as 'Gair Majurwa Malik' land in Revisional Survey Records of Rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not justified and there was no substance in the appeal on merits. It also noted the failure of the State to redress the grievance of the respondent and directed the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand to issue appropriate guidelines to the revenue officials.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of rent receipts by the Circle Officer, mutation of land records, and the application of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 to the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that any error committed by the State's officials cannot be a ground for the State to doubt the genuineness of an entry made in the revenue records. It also highlighted the need for the State to redress grievances at its end and take action against guilty officers before initiating proceedings against an occupier.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand to issue appropriate guidelines to the revenue officials. The condonation of delay was also dismissed, and the matter was scheduled for compliance review.
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
1. Aggrieved of order dated 02.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 1504 of 2008, the appellant-State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. There is delay of 1547 days in filing the appeal, condonation thereof sought for through I.A. No.3439 of 2016. Not only there is ‘a huge’ delay in filing the appeal which, we are noticing, has become a usual practice of the State, there appears to be otherwise no reason much less sufficient reason carved out for the said delay. That apart, even on merits also, we do not find any substance in the instant appeal. We, therefore feel the necessity of adverting to the facts of the case.
3. The respondent-writ petitioner approached the Court when the Circle Officer refused to grant rent receipts to him. Briefly stated, the father of the respondent purchased 7.08 acres of land comprised in plot no. 3654, khata no. 194/560 at village-Samaliya and 5.34 acres land comprised in plot no. 1.3.8, thana no. 141, khata no. 73 at Bajra from Thakur Madender Nath Shahdeo and Lal Harakh Nath Shahdeo for valuable consideration. The father of the respondent, late S. M. Ahmed came in peaceful possession of the land and got his name mutated in the revenue records and started paying rent to the Government of Bihar. Late S. M. Ahmed died in the year, 1974 and he was buried in the aforesaid plot. The step-mother of the respondent was also buried next to her husband. It is pleaded that during his life time father of the respondent informed vide letter dated 09.07.1962 to the In-charge Deputy Collector and vide letter dated 23.07.1969 to the Block Development Officer about gift made by him in respect of the aforesaid land to his four sons including, the respondent. When no objection was received in response to notice dated 21.04.1970 issued from the office of the Circle Officer calling for objections, name of the respondent and his brother were entered in Register-II, and correction slip was issued in their favour. The appellant-Circle Officer, however, stopped accepting rent for the aforesaid land and after the respondent returned from abroad and settled in Mumbai, he approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in this regard. He submitted a representation also before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 30.08.2005 and another representation to the Additional Collector, Ranchi on 21.09.2005. However, his grievance was not redressed, constrained the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1504 of 2008.
4. In the writ proceeding, the Circle Officer filed counter-affidavit asserting that the land in question stands recorded as “Gair Majurwa Malik” land in Revisional Survey Records of Rights and nature of the land has been recorded as “Parti Garha”. The respondent pleaded that jamabandi was created in the name of Syed S. M. Ahmed, the father of the respondent without obtaining orders of the competent authority and, thereafter, vide Succession Mutation No. 2 of 1992-92 jamabandi was created in the name of his sons including, the respondent.
5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V contends that the aforesaid land stands vested in the State in the year 1955-56 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, the learned counsel fails to disclose any order in this respect from the Writ Court proceeding. The learned counsel further contends that rent receipt from 1972-73 to 1992-93 was issued on 26.11.1992. There is no provision in law which prohibits one-time payment of rent for about 20 years. It is not a case pleaded by the appellant-State that it collects rent from the land owner on its own, or that demand is raised by the State for releasing rent from landlord/landowner etc.
6. The respondent specifically pleaded before the Writ Court that his father built a farm house, mosque, dairy farm, poultry farm, tennis court etc. on the aforesaid land, however, the appellant-State did not deny the assertion in paragraph no.7 of the Writ Petition, by pleading that there is no such construction o
