Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Rukmini Devi Jalan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4664 of 2007
Decided On : 02-02-2018
For the Petitioners: Rahul Kumar Gupta, Radha Krishan Gupta.
For the Respondent: Amit Kumar Verma.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a timely, reasoned judgment considering all evidence and legal provisions, as well as the need to adhere to the principles outlined by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Mutation - Land Dispute - Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973 - Sections 5, 12, and 14 - The court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order and consideration of registered documents and relevant provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief to quash an order dismissing their Revision, mutate their names in Government Revenue Records, and show cause against the respondent's order. The dispute involved land mutation and Chhaparbandi rights over specific plots in Ranchi district, with the petitioners claiming entitlement based on historical documents and court decrees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Commissioner's order, reserved in 2004 and passed in 2006, was cryptic and failed to consider the evidence and legal provisions presented. It emphasized the need for a timely and reasoned judgment, considering all relevant materials and giving full opportunity for hearing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the Deputy Commissioner's order, the delay in passing the judgment, and the failure to consider the petitioners' evidence and legal provisions, including the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Deputy Commissioner's failure to provide a reasoned order, consider the evidence and legal provisions, and pass judgment in a timely manner, as required by legal principles and the Supreme Court's guidelines.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order within four months, considering all available material and giving full opportunity for hearing.
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned JC to SC (L&C).
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-
(a) For quashing the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No. 4) in Case No. 141/R-15/02-03 as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition whereby the said authority has been pleased to dismiss the Revision filed by the petitioners.
(b) For issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to mutate the names of the petitioners in the Government Revenue Records.
(c) For issuance of show-cause against the respondent No. 5 as to how he has passed an order after his transfer from the post as also as to how he has passed the final order in the Revision case after nearly two and half years from the date of hearing of final arguments.
(d) The petitioners had filed petition for amendment of the writ petition being LA No. 819 of 2008 challenging the orders dated 18.5.2002/24.5.2002 passed by the Circle Officer. Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 105/2000-2001 as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition and also challenging the order dated 19.9.2002 passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 21R/02-03 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application. This petition for amendment was allowed vide order dated 27.4.2009.
Thus, the orders passed by the Circle Officer as well as the appellate authority are also under challenge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while giving the factual background of the case submits as under:-
(i) Plot involved in this case is plot nos. 317, 318 and 319 situated at Chandwe within the district of Ranchi.
(ii) According to the petitioners, the aforesaid plots were Gairmajarua Malik lands of the then Landlord Rajguru Sridharnath Rao Pendse who made Chhaparbandi settlement by registered deed dated 2.9.1940.
(iii) The said Chhaparbandi settlement was followed by registered deed of Kabuliat dated 3.10.1940.
(iv) An enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Kanke who confirmed that the aforesaid documents were registered vide his letter dated 17.6.2000.
(v) The specific case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid land was settled by the landlord in favour of Ranglal Jalan with Chhaparbandi rights and the settlee Ranglal Jalan paid rent to the landlord against receipts.
(vi) Further case of the petitioners is that intermediary estate vested in the State of Bihar on promulgation of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
(vii) Intermediary estate vested in the State of Bihar on promulgation of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. However there was a confusion as to whether in respect of lands with Chhaparbandi rights, the estate of the landlord had vested in the State of Bihar or not. Title Suit Nos. 161, 162 of 1956, were filed and they were decided analogously by the court of 1st Additional Munsif, Ranchi. By judgment dated 22.8.1959 the learned Additional Munsif held that in respect of Chhaparbandi lands the right of the ex-intermediary to collect rent had not vested in the State of Bihar.
(viii) On the basis of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the then landlord Rajguru S.V.R. Pendse wrote a letter dated 17.12.1959 and claimed payment of Chhaparbandi rent from with interest from Ranglal Jalan.
(ix) Circle Officer, Kanke served a notice on Ranglal Jalan demanding rent and stating that Ranglal Jalan should appear on 18.8.1959 to substantiate payment of rent to ex- intermediary for last two years.
(x) Ranglal Jalan sent reply by registered post with A/D and was received in the office of the Circle Officer, Kanke.
(xi) Thereafter C.O. Kanke sent notice dated 8.9.1959 to Ranglal Jalan asking him to appear on 17.9.1959 with receipt to show payment of rent to ex-landlord.
(xii) Ranglal Jalan submitted reply dated 5.12.1960.
(xiii) That thereafter the Circle Office, Kanke sent Letter No. 26 dated 2.2.1961 directing Rangl
