Allowed

Adhunik Power And Natural Resources Limited Through Its General Manager Sri Mani Shankar v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2018WPC/4107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged land possession orders issued by revenue authorities. The Court held that mutation proceedings are revenue matters for updating records and do not resolve title disputes.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letters dated 22.06.2017 and 04.07.2017 quashed. Order dated 03.09.2015 in mutation appeal set-aside.

Adhunik Power And Natural Resources Limited Through Its General… — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 4107 of 2017

¶4

Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited, through its General Manager, namely, Sri Mani Shankar, son of Sri Baldeo Sinha, resident of 6-J.D. Corporate Building, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Mahavir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Hindpiri, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella, Kharsawan

¶8

Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraikella, Kharsawan

¶9

Circle Officer, Gamharia, Saraikella

¶10

Patia Manjhian

¶11

Rupmani Manjhian ... … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Shamim Akhtar, GA-III For Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate -----

¶14

Order No. 12 Dated: 18.07.2018

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. 436 dated 22.06.2017 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraikella, whereby the respondent no. 3 – the Circle Officer, Gamharia has been directed to take appropriate step for giving possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no. 4 – Patiya Manjhian within time and to inform accordingly. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter no. 1520 dated 04.07.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of the land in question in favour of respondent no. 4 – Patiya Manjhian and respondent no. 5 – Rupmani Manjhian.

¶16

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that an application was made under the provisions of Section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CNT Act”) in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan seeking permission for transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner for establishing a company which was registered as T.A Misc. Case No. 12 of 2010-11. The said application was allowed vide order dated 06.08.2010 and permission to transfer

¶17

¶18

the land in favour of the petitioner was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land measuring an area of 2.47 acres situated at Mouza-Srirampur, Thana No. 48, pertaining to Khata No. 19, Plot Nos. 22, 24 and 26p, Khata No. 32, Plot Nos. 5, 6, 56, 57, 58, 59, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 and 132 from Late Balram Murmu, Late Gorkha Murmu and Jagaran Murmu by virtue of registered sale-deed no. 4753/4738 dated 26.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for mutation of the land in its favour which was registered as Mutation Case No. 864 of 2010-11 and the same was allowed on 04.10.2010. After mutation of the land, the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 filed an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 06 of 2012 in the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Saraikella for setting aside the order dated 04.10.2010 passed in Mutation Case No. 864 of 2010 and the same was finally allowed on 05.04.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision application vide Mutation Revision No. 11 of 2013-14 before the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan and vide order dated 03.12.2013, the matter was remanded to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella to hear both the parties afresh and pass necessary order taking into consideration all the materials available on record. On remand, the notices were issued to the parties and after hearing them, the appeal was again allowed vide order dated 03.09.2015 setting-aside the order passed in Mutation Case No. 864 of 2010-11. The respondent no. 2 vide letter no. 436 dated 22.06.2017 directed the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate steps for giving possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no. 4 within time and to inform accordingly. Pursuant to letter dated 22.06.2017, the respondent no. 3 issued a letter to the manager of the petitioner-company bearing letter no. 1520 dated 04.07.2017 directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the said land.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled principle of law that a person cannot be dispossessed from the land by the order of the revenue authorities which can only be done by the competent civil court. The respondent authorities while issuing letters dated 22.06.2017 and 04.07.2017 failed to appreciate that the

¶20

¶21

petitioner is in possession of the land in question by virtue of a registered sale-deed which can only be nullified by a competent civil court. The respondent authorities, on the basis of administrative direction, cannot compel the petitioner to vacate the land in question.

¶22

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan has never granted permission for transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the land under Khata No. 19, Mouza-Srirampur stands recorded in the records of right in the name of Thugru Manjhi and Roop Singh Manjhi, Lula Manjhi, Gumda Manjhi and Gudrai Manjhi. Further R.S Khata No. 32 stands recorded in the name of Roop Singh Manjhi and others. Roop Singh Manjhi died leaving behind three daughters namely, Patia Manjhian (the respondent no. 4), Sumitra Manjhian and Rupmani Manjhian (the respondent no. 5). They have never partitioned the aforesaid land. Therefore, the sale-deed dated 26.08.2010 executed by the sons of Late Sumitra Manjhian showing their father’s name as Roop Singh Manjhi instead of Bhadru Manjhi is itself illegal. It is further submitted that the sale-deed has been executed by the vendors in a fraudulent manner as they had no right, title, interest and possession of the aforesaid land to sell the same to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is a well settled law that merely by registration of the sale-deed of a land does not confer right, title and interest to the purchaser. It is also submitted that before issuing the impugned letters, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to agitate the matter before the appellate authority.

¶23

5. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that the khatiyani raiyat Roop Singh Manjhi died leaving behind three daughters without any male issue. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the only surviving daughters of khatiyani raiyat Late Roop Singh Manjhi, who inherited the entire property and enjoyed peaceful possession jointly without any partition. It is further submitted that the vendors of the sale-deed are the sons of Late Poko @ Sumitra Manjhian, who died leaving behind the vendors and as such, the vendors have no right, title, interest and possession over the land

¶24

¶25

transferred by the registered sale-deed after grant of permission under Section 49 of the CNT Act. It is evident from the sale-deed that the vendors have written their fathers’ name as Late Roop Singh Manjhi, who was in fact the maternal grandfather of the vendors and as such, the vendors in collusion with the petitioner-company got permission for transfer of land under Section 49 of the CNT Act in fraudulent manner.

¶26

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has purchased the said land by virtue of a registered deed of sale after taking statutory permission under Section 49 of the CNT Act and subsequently, the possession of the land was given to it. The mutation of the said land was also allowed by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 04.10.2010 in Mutation Case No. 864 of 2010-11. The private respondents filed appeal against the order of mutation, which was allowed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella. However, in revision filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner remitted the matter back to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella to hear the matter afresh. Pursuant thereto, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella heard the matter again and allowed the appeal by setting-aside the order of mutation dated 04.10.2010. Consequently, the impugned letters have been issued to the petitioner to give vacant possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The order dated 03.09.2015 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 06/2012-13 is the basis of the issuance of the impugned letters. While passing the order dated 03.09.2015, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella held that the property was not partitioned between the legal heirs of the recorded tenant and the same was sold by the sons of one of the daughters of the recorded tenant by declaring themselves to be the sons of Roop Singh Manjhi, therefore the transfer of the land made to the petitioner is illegal. Thus, the question before this Court is as to whether in a mutation proceeding, the right, title and interest of any person can be adjudicated?

¶27

7. In the case of “Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2012 (4) JLJR 210 , the learned

¶28

¶29

Division Bench of this court held as under:

¶30

26. In sum and substance, the mutation proceedings have limited scope so far as its effect is concerned and the purpose of mutation proceeding is very clear from the Act of 1973 itself which substantially suggests that these are proceedings to safeguard the interest of the State and the revenue authorities primarily so that the State may know the persons' right over the agricultural land and once the names are entered in the revenue record they can be altered only because of the reasons mentioned in Sections 3 to 13 of the Act of 1973. The provisions referred above are not meant for getting a declaration in serious dispute cases with respect to the entitlement and, therefore, it has been specifically provided by Section 5 of the Act of 1973 that when under the Code of Civil Procedure, possession of a holding or part thereof has been delivered in execution of a decree to the decree holder or to a purchase at Court auction sale or when a final decree for partition or for foreclosure of a mortgage has been passed the Court executing the decree or the Court passing the final decree for partition or foreclosure, as the case may be, shall also give notice of the fact in the prescribed form to the Anchal Adhikari of the area. The Anchal Adhikari has no jurisdiction to alter or modify or disobey the court's decree and consequential effect of the possession under the Act of 1973 or otherwise. Looking to the nature of the proceeding and limited jurisdiction of the Anchal Adhikari of making correction in the revenue record, the Anchal Adhikari has no power and jurisdiction to pass a decree or order of declaration of a right, title or interest in the property or has right to declare about legality and validity of an instrument of transfer or a settlement or decide the issue of contentious succession cases which power vest under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, in civil courts.

¶31

8. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would be evident that the mutation proceeding has limited scope. The order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties. The purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a person who is in possession of the land. The revenue authority while deciding the mutation case is not supposed to look into the right and title of a person upon the said land. The revenue authority, while dealing with the mutation proceeding, does not have the power to decide the question of title of any person upon a particular land. In the present case, the petitioner has acquired the said land by virtue of a registered

¶32

¶33

sale-deed after getting permission of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 49 of the CNT Act. The provision for annulment of any transfer made under Section 49 of the CNT Act has been provided in sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the CNT Act.

¶34

9. Sub-section (5) which was inserted in Section 49 of the CNT Act reads as under:

¶35

"(5) The State Government may, at any time within a period of twelve years from the date on which written consent is given by the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the transfer of any holding or part thereof belonging to an occupancy raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes either on its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf set aside such written consent and annul the transfer, if after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to be heard, it finds that the consent had been obtained in contravention of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) by misrepresentation or fraud, and in case any holding or part thereof has been transferred on the basis of such written consent, direct the Deputy Commissioner to take further necessary action under Clause (c) of Sub-section 4-A of Section 46-"

¶36

10. In the case of “Shri Rajendra Nath Kapoors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in 1990 BLJ (Res) 352 , the Division Bench of the Patna High Court held as under:

¶37

"It is true that under both the sections provisions have been made for restoration of the land, but the scope of the two provisions are different. So far Section 49(5) is concerned, power has been given to the State Govt. to annul any transfer made with consent of the Deputy Commissioner if it is found that the consent had been obtained in contravention of the provision of Sub-sections (1) and (2) by misrepresentation or fraud. Under this Section the forum is the State Govt. and what is required to be determined by the State Govt. is whether consent of the Deputy Commissioner had been obtained in contravention of the provisions to Sub-sections (1) and (2) by misrepresentation or fraud. If the consent of the Deputy Commissioner was not obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, there is no question of annulling the transfer."

¶38

11. It would thus be clear that sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the CNT Act empowers only the State Government to annul such transfer at any time within 12 years, if it finds that the consent of the Deputy-Commissioner was obtained in contravention of the provisions

¶39

¶40

of sub-section (1) and (2) by misrepresentation, or by fraud. In the present case, the transfer of the land made after obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissioner has been annulled by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella, who had no jurisdiction under the CNT Act to annul the same. Moreover, the said order has not been passed under sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the CNT Act, rather in a mutation proceeding, whereby the order of dispossession of the petitioner has been passed which was not permissible in view of the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of “Mahabir Mahto” (supra).

¶41

12. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter no. 436 dated 22.06.2017 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 – Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraikella and the letter no. 1520 dated 04.07.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 – Circle Officer, Gamharia are quashed. The order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella in Mutation Appeal No. 06/2012-13 is also set-aside having been passed without jurisdiction.

¶42

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶43

Manish/A.F.R.

Adhunik Power And Natural Resources Limited Through Its General Manager Sri Mani Shankar v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adhunik Power And Natural Resources Limited Through Its General Manager Sri Mani Shankar v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Nath Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathun Prasad Shaw Alias Sri Nathun Alias Nathun Prasad Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Lakshman Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satya Narayan Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The Union Of India Through Directorate General Of India And Ors.