Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
Sk. Bholi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 4378 of 2005
Decided On : 16-03-2017
M/s Ashok Kr. Pandey and Dharmendra Kumar Malityar, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. Rohit, J. C to Mrs. Chandra Prabha, SC IV, for the Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to substantiate their possession claims with relevant documents and evidence, as mandated by the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.
Headnote:
Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act - Eviction under Section 42 - 1949 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, which pertains to eviction. The court highlighted the non-transferable nature of the land and the requirement for substantiating claims of possession with relevant documents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed continuous possession of a piece of land since 1932 based on relinquishment by the recorded tenant, but failed to provide any document or evidence to substantiate their claim. The court found that the petitioners did not have any legal basis for their claim of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to provide any evidence or documentation to support their claim of possession over the land. The impugned orders were upheld as the petitioners did not substantiate their claim of possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had a legal basis for their claim of possession over the land in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence or documentation provided by the petitioners to substantiate their claim of possession, as required under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found it devoid of merit, and the interim order was vacated.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondent-State.
2. Respondent No.5 has not entered appearance despite repeated steps for service of notice and also paper publication. It is on the application of the Respondent no.5 being R.E.R Case No.21/1980-81 that the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, Respondent no.4 directed eviction of the petitioner under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 by the impugned order dated 21.5.1984 (Annexure-3) from the piece of land comprising Plot no. 768 and 769 at Mouza Parsha, Thana Mahagama, District Godda measuing 19 dhoors and 2 Kathas 5 dhoors respectively. In appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 20/1984-85 preferred by the aggrieved petitioners, the order dated 21.5.1984 passed by the Respondent no.4 was affirmed by the Respondent no.3, Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide order dated 22.12.1986 (Annexure-5). The Revisional Authority, Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, Respondent no.2 also did not find any infirmity in the order of eviction and the affirmed the same in R.M.R. No. 411/1986-87 by the impugned order dated 23.3.2001(Annexure-6).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge to the impugned decisions has sought to convey that the original recorded tenant, Karpuri Ram, who died leaving behind his widow and son namely Mahendra Singh, Husband of Respondent no.5 had relinquished his claim over the property in question in the year 1932 and handed over the possession to the predecessor of the petitioner namely Mahboob Mandal for construction of the house. Petitioners had remained in continuous possession thereupon since 1932 and have also constructed a house. Petitioners also contended in their show cause before the Respondent no.4 in the Ejectment proceedings that in the recent survey operation their names were recorded in respect of the land in question. They have relied upon the report of the Anchal Amin dated 5.9.1988(Annexure-4) to support their claim of possession over the plot in question since long. Petitioners contended that they have lands contiguous to the land in question which has also been amalgamated. Their predecessor, Mahboob Mandal had constructed the house in 1932 and they are in continuous possession thereupon. They have taken a plea of adverse possession having continued in possession for 12 years before coming into force of the S.P.T. Act, 1949.
4. Respondent Authorities have however came to consistent findings that no documents signed by the recorded tenant or Kurfanama were evidenced to support the existence of bona fide transaction of transfer of property by the said Karpuri Ram in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners. Though the petitioners contended that the land has been mutated in their name but no such document was either filed nor the report of the Anchal Amin referred to the order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors. The Appellate Authority, Deputy Commissioner, Godda also held that the Appellant had no documents to show and prove their alleged occupation since 1932 and that the recorded tenant had allowed them to take possession of athe aforesaid land. Even before the Revisional Authority, petitioners failed to produce any single chit of paper which could substantiate their claim of possession over the land in question since 1932.
5. By way of supplementary affidavit filed in the present case on 10.3.2017 petitioners have enclosed the mutation detail(Banda Parcha) in respect of plot no. 1106/769 of Khata no. 27 and 8 under Mouja Parsha, Thana Mahagama as proof of mutation. The said document however does not show any reference of creation of jamabandi in favour of the petitioners or their ancestor. No other documents of settlement or conveyance of land in favour of the petitioner or their ancestor has either been brought on record in the present writ petition to substantiate their claim.
6. Respondents in their supplementary counter a
