Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Gopal Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 129 of 2016
Decided on : 03-07-2019
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 4 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – Jurisdiction - Cancellation of long running Jamabandi – Tenant – Claim compensation - Said document cannot be discarded merely on account of fact that jamabandi has not been created by competent authority as also on ground that reference of settlement as has been made there is no reference of deposit of rent and further proof of settlement of land prior has not been substantiated and further on or no proof regarding continuation of jamabandi is available and in view thereof it has been contended that authority before coming to said reasoning in cancelling jamabandi has not appreciated report submitted by revenue authorities consisting of four public servants under chairmanship of Sub-Divisional Officer annexed as Annexure wherein fact about settlement of land against landlord issuance of rent receipt by ex-landlord and reference of reflects that settlement by ex-landlord has been made prior and therefore it will not come within domain of initiating proceeding under Section 4 Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and hence, his submission is that order passed by concerned authority which has been challenged in instant petition suffers from illegality and hence, not sustainable in eyes of law – Held, If these reasons would be taken into consideration by comparing details furnished at Annexure-3 same would be found to be contrary Collector has given the reference about illegality in creating Jamabandi, running of said Jamabandi but without any documentary evidence while Annexure-3 which is a report submitted by Four Member Committee headed by Sub-Divisional Officer which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Collector, while taking final decision but this Court has failed to understand that when Report was there by said Committee why it has not been considered and even, there is no reference of that - Furthermore, in said Report Reference of Receipt is there as also reference of meaning thereby settlement has been found to be made but has not been appreciated by Collector while exercising power – Further Collector cannot be said to be a competent authority in view of Government Circular which has been annexed by State in counter affidavit which was issued as under Annexure-A relevant is page 18 wherein at paragraph 6 detailed procedure for cancellation of Jamabandi has been referred after initiating a proceeding under Section 4 (h). A proposal is to be sent before State Government for its confirmation, meaning thereby State Government has been conferred with the power to take final decision as it also reflects from provision of Section 4 which confers power upon Collector to make enquiry in respect of any transfer including settlement or lease and Collector may after giving reasonable notice to parties to appear and be heard, dispossess person claiming under it and take possession of such properties or such terms as may appear to Collector to be fair and equitable - In second proviso reflects that no order annulling the transfer shall take effect nor shall possess the possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been passed by State Government, meaning thereby Collector is Advisory authority after conducting an enquiry and taking a decision for annulling but the same would be given effect to after being confirmed by State Government but as has been transpired by this Court by going through the impugned order that long running Jamabandi has been cancelled – Petition allowed
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 22.06.2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra in Case No. 05 of 2012-13 (Annexure-5) has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the authorities have cancelled the still long standing jamabandi running in the name of the father of the petitioner with respect to the land measuring 4.00 acres, comprised within plot no. 541 of Khata No. 278 situated at village Saradhu, P.S. Tandwa, District Chatra.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question has been recorded in the record of rights as gair mazarua khas land, having in the nature of jungle jhari but the same is beyond the purview of the coverage of the forest area. The said land has been settled in favour of the predecessor in interest by the ex-landlord sometime in the year 2001 vikram Sanvat, corresponding to, sometime in the year 1943 and 1944 and thereafter, the ex-landlord has issued rent receipt. From vikram Sanvat, 2001-2007-2008 continuously by accepting the rent to the tune of Rs.4/- after vesting of the jamindari with effect from 01.01.1956, the rent receipt has been issued in the year vikram Sanvat 2010-11 on 04.01.1955 being Government receipt No. 222655 and thereafter, the name of the petitioner on the basis of the said document has been entered in the Register II at page no. 20/2003 and hence, the petitioner is in possession, since the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was in possession of the land and thereafter, the petitioner has come in possession thereof and making payment of the rent and all of a sudden, the Revenue authorities have initiated a proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, which ultimately culminated into the final order dated 22.06.2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.
3. The ground has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in assailing the aforesaid order is that the long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled, if the land has been settled by the ex-landlord by way of Sada hukumnama coupled with the rent receipt, issued by the ex-landlord in lieu of acceptance of rent thereof and after vesting of jamindari, the Government has entered the name of the predecessor in interest/petitioner in the record of rights. The said document cannot be discarded merely on account of the fact that the jamabandi has not been created by the competent authority as also on the ground that the reference of settlement, as has been made, there is no reference of deposit of the rent and further, the proof of settlement of the land prior to 01.01.1946 has not been substantiated and further on or after 1965, no proof regarding continuation of jamabandi is available and in view thereof, it has been contended that the authority before coming to the said reasoning in cancelling the jamabandi has not appreciated the report submitted by the revenue authorities consisting of four public servants under the chairmanship of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, annexed as Annexure-3, wherein, the fact about settlement of land against landlord, issuance of rent receipt by the ex-landlord and the reference of the vikram Sanvat i.e. 2001 reflects that the settlement by the ex-landlord has been made prior to 01.01.1946 and therefore, it will not come within the domain of initiating the proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and hence, his submission is that the order passed by the concerned authority, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition, suffers from illegality and hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-Respondent.
Placing the same, Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C) III appearing for the State Respondents, has submitted that the stand, which has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra in cancelling the long running ja
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
