IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

W.P. (C) No. 2316 of 2004

Kashinath Jha & Others

…. ….

Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Others

… ….

Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

(Through :- Video Conferencing)

….........

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State

: Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I.

For the Private Respondents

: Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate.

........

26 / 09.02.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned

counsel for the respondent / State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I and learned

counsel for the private respondents, Mrs. Neetu Singh.

The original writ petition was filed by one Mathura Prasad Jha, son of

Binod Jha, but because of death of original writ petitioner during pendency

of the writ petition, his legal heirs have been substituted.

Similarly, the private respondent nos. 4 & 5 namely, Govind Ram and

Budhan Ram have also died and their legal heirs have already been

substituted, for whom, Mrs. Neetu Singh represents. Learned counsel, Mrs.

Neetu Singh has fairly submitted that she will file Vakalatnama in course of

the day and she has admitted that she defends the case of private

respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Kumar has submitted

that in the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of

writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.02.2004

passed by the respondent no.2, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division,

Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal (RMA) No. 03/1985-86, whereby

and whereunder, he has confirmed the order dated 11.12.1984 passed by the

Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka (respondent no. 3) in Fouti Case

No. 02 of Mouza – Kordina No. 32, whereby he has ordered to record the

name of private respondent nos. 4 & 5 with respect to Jamabandi No. 15 as

the heirs of the recorded tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Kumar has further

submitted that the land belongs to the petitioners as the same has been settled

by the Zamindar of Hundwa Estate as Clause-12 of the Records of Right of

-2-

Khas Village, Zamindar has right to make settlement of such Fauti lands with

deserving raiyats. The said settlement was made by Rani Sonawati Kumari

vide Patta dated 15 Magh, 1352 corresponding to a date of the year of 1946,

settled the lands of said Jamabandi No. 15 with the original writ petitioner,

who thereafter came in possession thereof and the same has been mentioned

in return submitted by the Zamindar and accordingly, mentioned in Register-

II.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Kumar has further

submitted that the petitioners have claimed the same on the basis of the

document, whereas private respondent has only submitted orally and have no

document to claim the same, which has been accepted by the Settlement

Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Kumar has further

submitted that the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana and Commissioner,

Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka have not inquired about the lineage of the

private respondents that they belong to last recorded tanant Tikiha Ghatwalin

or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Kumar has submitted

that Jamabandi was opened in the name of the original writ petitioner and

rent receipt is being granted to the original writ petitioner, as such the finding

recorded by the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana as well as

Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka are bad in law. The name

of private respondents have been wrongly mentioned in the Register-II as it

is contrary to the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Jarmundi which has

been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, as such, the

impugned order may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the private respondents, Mrs. Neetu Singh has

submitted that they have inherited the prop