Disposed

Shyam Sunder Ram v. Land Reforms and Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2018WPC/4186/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Circle Officer's notice restraining construction on disputed land titled under rival documents. The Court held the revenue officer lacks jurisdiction to stop construction, directing parties to appear before the Circle Officer for mutation and rent receipts. The writ was disposed of with directions for an upcoming hearing.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to appear before the Circle Officer on 24 September 2018; the Circle Officer directed to pass a reasoned order on mutation and rent receipts within one month.

Shyam Sunder Ram Vs Land Reforms and Revenue Department — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 4186 of 2015

¶3

Shyam Sunder Ram, son of Late Ramawatar Ram, resident of Mahagama, Godda, P.O. and P.s. Mahagama, Dist. Godda

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. P.S. & District-Godda

¶9

The Additional Collector Godda, P.O. P.S. & District Godda

¶10

The Sub-divisional Officer, Godda, P.O. P.S. & District-Godda

¶11

The Circle Officer, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.-Mahagama, District-Godda

¶12

Shyamakant Bhagat, s/o Late Shivnath Bhagat, resident of Pachiyari Tola, P.O. and P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶18

¶19

7/05.09.2018

¶20

Heard Mr. Kumar Sundaram, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶21

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent.

¶22

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-state.

¶23

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶24

(i) “For quashing of the notice dated 18.08.2015 issued under the signature of the Circle Officer, Mahagama whereby the Circle Officer has directed the petitioner to stop the construction work on the land situated at Plot no. 32, Mouza-Basua, Jamabandi (Khata) No. 24/56 at village Mahagama in the district of Godda under the misconceived pretext that the father of one Shyamkant Bhagat had donated a part of the said land to Veterinary Hospital.

¶25

(ii) Upon quashing of the said letter dated 18.08.2015, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to direct the concerned respondent/s to issue land revenue/rent receipts in favour of the petitioner for the land

¶26

situated at Plot no. 32, Mouza-Basua, Jamabandi (Khata) No. 24/56 at village Mahagama in the district of Godda in the light of the fact that the land has been settled in favour of the petitioner by way of Hukumnama was back in the year 1952.

¶27

(iii) For showing cause upon the concerned respondent/s as to under what circumstances have the rent receipts which were duly being issued in favour of the petitioner till the year 2003 have been stopped and further command upon the Respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner vide which it has been brought to the knowledge of the concerned respondents that the land has duly been settled in favour of the petitioner and rent receipt were being issued earlier.

¶28

(iv) For directing upon the Respondent No. 6 to refrain from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner upon the land in question.”

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his writ petition to the impugned notice dated 18.08.2015 issued by the Circle Officer. He submits that he has already made a prayer seeking direction upon the Circle Officer to issue rent receipts in connection with the property. He submits that notice which has been issued by the Circle Officer to the extent it relates to restraining construction over the property which has been occupied by the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and that the circle officer has got no business to pass any interim order or any order of injunction to stop construction over the private property.

¶30

He submits that the petitioner herein are claiming to be in possession of the property by virtue of independent title and rent receipts and the private respondent is also claiming possession on the basis of Hukumnama and further the respondent claims that they have donated the private property to the veterinary hospital who were in possession of the concerned property.

¶31

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent state submits that parties should appear before the Circle Officer who may pass appropriate order after considering the rival claim of the parties and pass order on the point of mutation and issuance of rent receipts to the respondents.

¶32

As both the parties are claiming the property on the basis of

¶33

independent document. He submits that the private respondent herein was not the party in the title suit and the same is not binding upon him. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent state also submits that party should appear before the Circle Officer pursuant to the notice. But during the course of hearing, he cannot satisfy the court and draw attention of the court to any provision of law which entitles the Circle Officer to pass order restraining the private respondents from making construction over the private property.

¶34

After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record it appears that petitioners and the private respondent herein are claiming property by virtue of independent document and Circle Officer has issued notice to both the parties. In such circumstances, the parties may appear before the Circle Officer in the matter pursuant to the notice and pray for mutation or issuance of rent receipts before the said authority in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 and the Circle Officer in turn is directed to pass appropriate order after hearing the parties.

¶35

So far as interim order passed by the Circle Officer in the impugned notice dated 18.08.2015 where order has also been passed restraining construction over the disputed property, this court is of the considered view that the Circle Officer has got no jurisdiction to pass any restraining order in connection with the construction over the private property. If any party is aggrieved by the construction only remedy is to move competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶36

10.The parties agree to appear before the Circle Officer on 24^th September 2018 and it is directed that the Circle Officer upon their appearance, in turn shall pass appropriate reasoned order on the petition or document filed by the parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶39

Binit/

Shyam Sunder Ram v. Land Reforms and Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Ram v. Land Reforms and Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Samiullah Vs Collectariate

Ram Brichha Mahto Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Mathura Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mangal Das Oroan Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Baneshwar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.