SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Pramod Kumar Mandal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2001 of 2019
Decided On : 07-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vineet Prakash.
For the Respondent: Ratnesh Kumar.

Headnote:

Registration Act, 1908 – Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 – Revenue Authority – Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms – Learned counsel petitioner Prakash and learned counsel respondents-State – Petitioner resident of village preferred this writ petition quashing – Held, Court is not passing any order and keep it open to Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Department Government of Jharkhand to examine assets of Circle Officer filed such bogus affidavit before Court Circle Officer examine his disproportionate assets State of joining of his service randomly to Revenue authorities – Writ petition is hereby allowed.

ORDER :

1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Prakash and learned counsel for the respondents-State Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I.

2. The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Mandal, son of Sri Basant Lal Mandal, resident of village Banwarsa, P.O. Khesar, P.S. Belhar, District-Banka, Bihar has preferred this writ petition on 24.04.2019 for quashing the Letter contained Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016 issued by the Respondent no. 5, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Annexure-7), whereby and where under the Joint Secretary has exceeded his jurisdiction by constituting an illegal District Level Committee for issuance of LPC for registration of land, by surpassing the provisions contained under the Registration Act, 1908, wherein the District Sub-registrar is himself empowered to accept or deny registration of a document, therefore the act of the respondent no. 5 by constituting an illegal committee is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Though the letter contained in Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5643 of 2017 in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 affirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A No. 226 of 2019 in terms of order dated 18.10.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Prakash has submitted, that he is not pressing the second prayer. He has further prayed for quashing the order/decision dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 5, in minutes of meeting of District Level Committee, Deoghar, whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of LPC for registration of land has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that respondents may be directed to issue LPC in favour of the petitioner for registration of Basauri transferable landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No. 30/3493 D and 31/3493 V comprised within new Town Plan Plot No. 1280 and 1281, Settlement Plot No. 95, admeasuring an area of 3800 sq. feet, under Ward No. 17 of Deoghar Municipality, situated in Mouza Khoradah, Mohalla Bompass Town, Thana No. 402, sub-division, Sub-Registry, P.S. and District Deoghar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner is a owner having valid right, title and possession over Basauri transferable landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No. 30/3493 D and 31/3493 V comprised within new Town Plan Plot No. 1280 and 1281, Settlement Plot No. 95, admeasuring an area of 3800 sq. feet, under Ward No. 17 of Deoghar Municipality, situated in Mouza Khoradah, Mohalla Bompass Town, Thana No. 402, Sub-division, Sub-Registry, P.S. and District-Deoghar. The petitioner has purchased this land vide registered Sale Deed No. 2308 dated 02.09.1995 from the vendor Smt. Padma Mukherjee W/o Late Nihar Kumar Mukherjee, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1. After purchasing the aforesaid landed property the petitioner came in exclusive possession of the land and got his name mutated in the revenue records of the Government vide Mutation Case No. 174/95-96 and paid rent against grant of rent receipts, which was issued up-to the year 2011-12, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given the history of the land that initially the land belongs to Ghatwal of Rohini estate namely Thakur Ashutosh Deo, who settled twenty khattas of land in favour of Mani Bhushan Bandhopadhayay and Subhashni Devi by grant patta on 23.05.1915 coupled with delivery of possession. The photocopy of patta dated 23.05.1915 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Further after the death of said Mani Bhushan Bandhopadhayay and subhashini Devi, their legal heirs and successors came in exclusive possession over the aforesaid land and thereafter transferred the same in favour of Nihar Kumar Mukherjee (Mukhopadhy

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top