IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 5059 of 2009 -----

Thakur Manmohan Singh Munda, S/o Late Hikim Shyam Sundar Singh Munda, R/o Village-P.O. & P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

4. The Circle Officer, at P.O. & P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Respondents -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC(L&C)-1 -----

CAV ON 23.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 23 / 07/ 2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, for compensation to the petitioner for alleged illegal encroachment of his raiyati land measuring 05 acres of Plot No. 1671, Khata No. 2 and Plot No. 1672 of Khata No. 317 of Mouza Sonahatu under Thana No. 58 of District-Ranchi.

2. It is contended that without any notice and without any acquisition of the said land, the hospital has been constructed by the State.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER

3. Petitioner is Munda by caste, and a member of scheduled tribe, and is a raiyat of the lands situated in the revenue village-Sonahatu under P.S.- Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi. Both the plots of land were recorded in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh Munda in the revisional survey record of rights published in the year 1932.

4. The nature of land as per the record of rights of plot No. 1671 was Bakast Maalik, whereas of plot No. 1672 was Gairmazarua Malik. It is further case of the petitioner that these lands never vested with the Government by the operation of Bihar Land Reforms Act.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the primary health center has been constructed on the said plot without a formal process of land acquisition and payment of compensation to the petitioner.

6. It is further averred that as per Khewat of said Mouza Sonahatu (Annexure-4), Khewat No.2 is recorded in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh as per the revisional survey. These lands come within the area of Mankii i.e. Headman of Group of Revenue Villages. In the record of right the land has been stated to be Jerath Malik, meaning private land.

7. This Khewat was prepared in the year 1930 and is part of the revisional survey. In the column4, it has been referred to as ILAKA, meaning thereby that these lands, within the area of Mankii. The Khatian of the said village, Sonahatu, at column no.2 of Annex-2 shows the land to be Jerath Malik in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh. Out of these 7.44 acres of land under Plot No.1671 of the petitioner dispute arose with regard to 1.33 acres.

8. Nature of land was Bakast as held in SAR Revision No.07 of 2020 which was decided in favour of the Petitioner.

9. The second limb of argument is about the nature of tenure. It is contended that both of these plots were Mundarikhunt Kattidari which did not vest in the State as per the provision under Section 14 of the CNT Act, on coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In order to buttress the argument that they were Mundarikhunts, a specific reference is made to chapter III of the survey report of Taylor. Petitioner was administered oath of Pradhani/Manki on 20.12.2007 (Annexure-19).

10. Mutation of the said lands were made by order dated 26.03.2010, correction slip was issued and rent was accepted by granting rent receipts.

11. In SAR Revision Case No.7/2020 vide order dated 13.09.2021 it is admitted that the land was recorded as Bakast Malik in the name of Ridai Nath Singh.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS

12. As per the case of the respondent-State, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, the land situated at Mouza Sonahatu, Thana No. 58, measuring 05 acres of Plot No. 1671, Khata no.2 was Bakast and since after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the rent was never fixed and consequently was treated as Gairmazarua land.

13. So far Plot No. 1672 of Khata No. 317 is c