Writ petition challenging cancellation of jamabandi for a land acquired by the State. Court held cancellation lawful under Bihar Tenant's Act as petitioner admitted lack of possession, ruling that mutation changes no title rights.
Writ petition dismissed as order impugned was correctly passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1331 of 2016
Raghubir Tiwary . … Petitioner
Versus
… Respondents
------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, AC to GP-III ----------------------------
12 / Dated 07th November, 2019
This writ petition is against the order dated 18.09.2015 as contained under Annexure-10 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chatra in connection with Case No.03/15-16 whereby and whereunder the jamabandi which was running in the name of mother of the petitioner namely, Bigo Devi has been cancelled.
It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the land in question has been acquired by the State of Jharkhand in favour of the CCL. It is further admitted case of the petitioner that the possession of the land has been transferred in favour of the CCL.
The revenue authority, in consequence of the impact of the acquisition, has passed an order of cancellation of jamabandi in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not found to be in possession of the landed property in question as would appear from the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by Circle Officer, Tandwa in Mutation Case No.03/15-16. The said order has been affirmed by the appellate authority i.e., vide order dated 18.09.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has submitted that although the land has been acquired but no compensation has been paid in favour of the recorded raiyat or her legal heir, the petitioner herein.
He further submits that for redressal of the aforesaid grievance pertaining to disbursement of compensation, another litigation has been filed which is lying pending before the competent authority for its consideration.
He further submits that since the revenue authority has cancelled the jamabandi, it may create hindrance in deciding the entitlement of compensation in lieu of acquisition which is lying pending for its consideration.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned AC to GP-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to suffer from the impugned order as because his admitted case is that he is not in possession of the land in question in lieu of the acquisition of the said land by the State of Jharkhand in favour of the CCL and rightly the jamabandi which was running in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled.
So far as the apprehension shown by the petitioner that cancellation of jamabandi may create hindrance in adjudication of the claim of the petitioner for compensation, submission has been made by him that the entitlement of compensation has got no nexus with the order passed by the revenue authority with respect to creation of mutation as because creation of mutation or cancellation of jamabandi does not either create any right/title or extinguish right and title over the property.
This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the admitted fact about the acquisition of land and its transfer in favour of the CCL by the State, is of the view that the petitioner since has not been found in possession of the land in question, as such, as per the report furnished by the concerned authority on direction by the revenue authority i.e., Circle Officer, the running jamabandi in the name of the mother of the petitioner has rightly
been cancelled as because under the provision of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 only thing is to be seen for creation of mutation is possession over the land in question and since admitted case of the petitioner is that he is not in possession of the said land, as such, the order impugned cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.
So far as apprehension of the petitioner that cancellation of jamabandi may create hindrance in deciding the claim of the compensation, this Court, is of the view that apprehension is not well founded in view of the fact that creation of mutation or its cancellation does not either create or extinguish any right over the property in question.
In view thereof, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.
Pending caveat application stands dismissed since nobody is present to press the same.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cancelling jamabandi in absence of possession is lawful under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973.
Whether cancellation of jamabandi impedes pending compensation claim for acquired land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raghubir Tiwary
The State of Jharkhand through D.C., Chatra
The Additional Collector, Chatra
The Sub-divisional Officer, Chatra
The Circle Officer, Tandwa, Chatra
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
