Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Narayan Prasad Khedia & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4118 of 2011
Decided On : 01-02-2018
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Jha
For the Respondent: Atanu Banerjee, G.A., D.K Chakravarty, A.K Sahani
Headnote:
Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 – Sections 14, 15, 16 – Point of jurisdiction – Writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Chas in Misc. Case as contained in Annexure- 7 series of the writ petition. – Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and at the end of the arguments the counsel for the petitioner has confined his writ petition only on the point of jurisdiction by submitting that the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Chas in Misc. Case is wholly without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. – Held, On account of the undisputed fact that the Land Reforms. Deputy Collector. Chas has passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and has no authority under law to cancel the jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act. 1973, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition in view of judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1. – Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid Act to demonstrate that Land Reforms Deputy Collector being an appellate authority in connection with any order which might be passed by the Circle Officer in relation to the mutation accordingly the said authority could not have exercised the original jurisdiction which is vested in the Circle Officer under the statute. – He submits that power of exercised by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector is wrongful exercise of power and accordingly the impugned order is nullity in the eye of law. – He, however, submits that allegation has been made against the petitioners regarding creation of jamabandi and submits that the same must be enquired into and order must be passed by the competent authority, i.e., the Circle Officer, Chas. – He further submits that the application which filed before the respondent No. 3 may be treated as application before the Circle Officer, Chas and he may be directed to dispose of the matter alter hearing the parties in accordance with law. – Petition Allowed
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Chas in Misc. Case No. 1/2010-2011 as contained in Annexure- 7 series of the writ petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and at the end of the arguments the counsel for the petitioner has confined his writ petition only on the point of jurisdiction by submitting that the impugned order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Chas in Misc. Case No. 1/2010-2011 is wholly without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.
4. It is submitted that the said authority has been pleased to cancel the jamabandi run in the name of the father of the petitioners for more than 20 years without hearing the petitioners. The specific case of the petitioners is that Land Reforms Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the jamabandi which is specifically vested upon Circle Officer by the statute namely Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973.
5. The facts of the case as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner is as under :-
(a) The property involved in this case is plot No. 4776, Khata No. 505, mouza Chas, Thana No. 30, area 49 decimal.
(b) Vide order dated 23.7.1982 mutation case No. 256(III)/1982-83 passed by the Circle Officer, Chas jamabandi was created in the name of Gopiram Khedia (father of petitioner No.1) and Gouri Shankar Khedia (father of petitioner No.2) and subsequently jamabandi No. 682/13 and 971/25 was opened in the name of the petitioners.
(c) Thereafter the petitioners have been continuously paying rent after mutation.
(d) Vide petition dated 15.02.2010 as contained in Annexure-6 series an application was filed before the respondent No. 3 for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners.
(e) Pursuant to the said petition dated 15.02.2010, the respondent No. 3 vide letter No. 116 dated 24.04.2010 directed the Circle Officer to make an enquiry and submit a report.
(f) Accordingly the Circle Officer, Chas initiated proceeding namely Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2010- 2011, Issued notice to the parties and after hearing the parties he submitted a report vide letter dated 24.7.2010 before the respondent No. 3 for passing an appropriate order. The Circle Officer observed in the report that as the jamabandi was running in the name of the petitioners since long, the aggrieved party may approach the Court for relief.
(g) Thereafter the respondent No. 3 passed order dated 23.3.2011 cancelling jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners being jamabandi numbers 682/13 and 971/25.
6. It is submitted by the petitioner that the complaint dated 15.2.2010 was wrongly filed before the respondent No. 3 and submits that if any person has grievance in connection with jamabandi in the name of the petitioners, the application ought to have been filed before the Circle Onker, Chas and not before the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Chas (respondent No.3). He submits that this particular application was processed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas and Circle Officer was ultimately directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The Circle Officer in his turn submitted his report and pursuant to the report of the Circle Officer. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector passed impugned order dated 23.3.2011 without hearing the parties and without issuing any notice in the matter. •The petitioners assailed this order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector being wholly without jurisdiction. The counsel referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 748/1981 dated 01.9.1987. The other point as argued by the counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregards to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was given to
