The issuance of rent receipts does not confer legal title to land, and compensation directives cannot stand in the absence of established title under land acquisition laws.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for review of the order dated 26.06.2024 passed in L.P.A No.37 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners herein by upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Factual Matrix of the Case:

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the instant review petition needs to refer herein which is being referred herein.

3. The Writ Petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 has been preferred for issuance of a direction upon the respondents not to use the residential land of the respondent/writ petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No. 1/44, Plot No. 68/142, Mouza-Bela Tand, Old Ward No. 7, New Ward No.14, P.S-Koderma (now Tilaiya), P.S No. 246, District-Koderma, measuring an area of 08 Decimals (out of total area of 16 Decimals) without lawfully acquiring the same as the said land was purchased by her husband- Late Balkrishan Prasad by virtue of registered sale deed No. 3515 dated 05.05.1993, mutation of which was done vide order dated 04.07.1994 passed in Mutation Case No. 243(II) of 1994-95.

4. The respondent/ Review Petitioner filed counter affidavit contending that there was a pond situated on the aforesaid land which was Gair Majurwa land. The said pond required protection so the Nagar Panchayat had demarcated the territory of the pond for its beautification and for the benefit of the people residing in the locality.

5. The writ petitioner raised objection on the ground that the demarcation was being done on his raiyati land but as per the respondent/ Review Petitioner demarcation was done on Gair Majurwa land as the respondents were empowered under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011.

6. Further, the Additional Collector, Koderma on behalf of state also filed counter affidavit stating that the pond is situated on the Gair Majurwa land which needed protection and hence the said land was demarcated by the Municipality for its beautification as well as the benefit of the people residing in the locality. It had been contended that the Circle Officer had issued the rent receipts without approval from Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms and Sub-Divisional Officer as prescribed in letter no. 2861, dated 08-06-2017 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on 9.09.2011 had stop the sale and purchase of the land as well as issuance of the rent receipt for such land. Subsequently, Notification no. 1132, dated 26.08.2015 was issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and Sale deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner is rendered ab initio void in view of the said notification.

8. The writ petitioner/respondent filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/Review Petitioner and contended that the respondent authorities did not have the power to make construction over the raiyati land in the garb of beautification and demarcation of pond and in support the documents of title and transfer of titles has been annexed along with the rejoinder. It was further contended that from a mere perusal of the measurement report submitted by the Amin as well as the report submitted that Circle Officer, Koderma shows that the land is raiyati and also the jamabandi was running in the name of husband of the Petitioner. It was further stated that the writ petitioner had installed pillars