Dismissed

Hamid Mian And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2019WPC/2374/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a claim for a rent receipt, the court held that Sada Hukumnama without rent receipt lacks evidentiary value for title. The petitioners failed to prove their names were entered in the Register II, resulting in the dismissal of the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no interference with the impugned order under Article 226.

Hamid Mian And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 2374 of 2017

¶2

1.Hamid Mian, 2.Sannaul Ansari, 3.Juman Mian, 4.Pahlu Mian, 5.Jahruddin Ansari, 6.Anwar Ansari, 7.Mantaz Ansari, 8.Ajmat Ansari, 9.Akhtar Ansari, 10.Halim Mian, 11.Razak Ansari, 12.Sajid Ansari, 13.Mukhtar Ansari, 14.Intaz Ansari, 15.Sannaul Ansari, 16.Salamat Ansari, 17.Israel Mian, 18.Ishaq, 19.Sahid Mian 20.Salauddin Ansari, 21.Kayamuddin Ansari. … … Petitioners -V e r s u s- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The District Collector, Deoghar. 3.The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar. 4.The Addl. Collector, Deoghar. 5.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. 6.The Circle Officer, Deoghar. … Respondents.

¶3

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶4

… For the Petitioners : - Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondent-State :- Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C. III.

¶5

and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C. III.

¶6

¶7

03/08.07.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.09.2016, passed in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2016-17 is under challenge by which the recommendation has been made by the authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi by rejecting the claim of the petitioners for issuance of rent receipt with direction to refer the matter before the Deputy Commissioner for its approval.

¶8

The case of the petitioners is that the land in question has been settled by way of Sada Hukumnama, as would be evident from Annexure-1 and thereafter, the name of the predecessor in

¶9

interest of the petitioners has been entered in the record of rights vide order passed in the Mutation Case No. 65 of 1964-65. Thereafter, the rent receipts are being issued in favour of the predecessor in interest, but, when the application has been filed for keeping the land of the petitioners, entered in the Register II, the same has been rejected by taking the ground that no original documents have been produced by the petitioners, showing therein, that their names have been entered in the record of rights i.e. the Register II.

¶10

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, all the documents have been produced before the concerned Revenue authorities apartfrom the Hukumnama in the order passed in Mutation Case No. 65 of 1964-65 and since, the reason, which has been shown by the Respondents-authorities in the impugned order, is not proper, therefore, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶11

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C. III appearing for the Respondent-State has defended the impugned order by submitting that there is no infirmity in the same, as because whatever document has been shown, as Annexure-1 and 2 i.e. in the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners but no documents have been produced by the petitioners, showing therein that their name have been entered in the record of rights i.e. the Register II, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and it may not be interfered with.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer the relevant provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. As per the said provision, the enactment has been came into being for vesting of the intermediaries with effect from 01.01.1956 and when the said Act has been enacted, the provision has been made, whereby and whereunder, in order to get rid of the illegal settlement, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been enacted where it has been provided therein, that merely Sada Hukumnama cannot be said to be substantive

¶13

evidence for settlement by the ex-landlord in favour of anybody, if not coupled with the rent receipt.

¶14

The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enacted with the object to end the colonial land governance system (Jamindari system) by following all intermediary (tenure holders) between the State and the tenant and brought State and tenant in direct relation. It provided for the transference to the State of the interest of the proprietors and the tenure holders in the hall of the mortgagee and lessee in such interests including interest in Trees, Forests, Fisheries, Jalka, Ferries, Hats, Bazars, Mines and Minerals. All the intermediary interest, except Mundari Khutkattari tenancy and the Bhuihari tenure vested in the State. The salient features of the Act came for detailed discussion before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh-Vs.-Kamla Singh and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 152 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing the object and scope has been pleased to observe “although there is a blanket vesting of proprietorship in all the lands in the State, the legislation is careful, in the initial stage of agrarian reform, not be deprivatory of the cultivating possession of those who have been tilling the land for long, therefore, while the consequence of vesting is stated to be an annihilation of all interested encumbrances and the Collector, in the land, certain special categories of rights are save, thus, the Raiyats and under- Raiyats are not dispossessed and their rights are preserved. The full proprietorship, Khas possession is also not disturbed. Certainly, the large land holders, whose lands have, for long been tenancies, lease their land to the State by virtue of vesting operations, nevertheless, the reform laws consists the continuation of the limited species of interest, in favour of those Jamindars . The three classes of lands is brought into the saving bucket by including them in the Khas possession of the proprietors. They are legislatively included in the Khas possession by an extended inteitemijation in Section 6 (1). The purpose and the purport of the provision is to allow the large land holders to keep the small areas, which may designated as the private or the privileged or the mortgaged lands, traditionally held directly and occasionally made

¶15

over law to others, often servant or others in the shape or of lease or mortgaged. The crucial point to remember is that Section 3 in all its transfers of the interest of lands to the State, the exception being the lesser interest under the State set out in detail in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7, so much so, anyone, who claims their title after the date of vesting, notified under Section 4 has no longer any such proprietorship. All the same, he may have a lesser rights, if he feels within same provision i.e. Section 5, 6 and 7. These sections does not stop, which merely saving lands in the Khas possession of the intermediaries, provides to include certain lands on temporary leases or mortgages with others. Section 3 provides that the State Government, may from time to time by Notification, declare that estate or tenure of the proprietor or the tenure holder specified in the Notification, have passed up and become vested in the State.

¶16

The consequence of vesting has been allowed in Section 4 of the BLR Act. Section 4 (a) to (c) lays down different interests, which got vested in consequence of the Notification of vesting, once an estate vests in the State, the various interests of the intermediaries enumerated therein are also vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances, barring the Raiyati or under- Raiyati interest. When a State is vested in the State, any encumbrances is automatically wiped out.

¶17

The provision has been made under Section 4 (h), which provides that the Collector shall have power to make enquiry in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such State or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building, used primarily as office or Kutchery for the collection of rent of such State or tenure or part thereof and if he is satisfied that such transfer was met at any time after the 01^st day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State, he may after giving notice to the parties annul such transfer, dispossess the possession, claiming it and take possession of such property. The question of genuineness of transfer by ‘Sada Hukumnama’ is also to be verified by the Collector to assess its benefits of settlement deed

¶18

under Section 4 (h), failing which the settlement cannot be challenged.

¶19

The question of consideration of the transfer by way of ‘Sada Hukumnama’ fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Nath Mandal and othersVs. - Jojan Mandal and others reported in AIR 1964 Patna 1 , wherein, it has been held that if a person claims to have obtained Raiyati interest by virtue of an unregistered document and claiming to be actually in possession of the same by him in making payment of rent, which has been accepted by the landlord, his title to Raiyati interest must be recognized, even though the unregistered lease is inadmissible as evidence of title.

¶20

It is further evident from the provision of Section 3 of the Act, 1950 that after vesting, the settlee is to make an application under Form ‘M’ alongwith the relevant documents i.e. the Hukumnama coupled with the rent receipt issued by the exlandlord and the State Government, thereafter will issue Form ‘K’ and then only the name of the concerned would be entered in the record of rights i.e. the Register II.

¶21

The factual aspect, as has been detailed by the parties in the case in hand has been examined, keeping the legal position as well as the authoritative pronouncement, as referred hereinabove.

¶22

In view of the above legal position, the order impugned has been scrutinized, wherefrom it is evident that the petitioners are solely relying upon the Hukumnama and thereafter, the order passed by the Mutating Officer in Mutation Case No. 65 of 196465 but the Sada Hukumnama, as has been held by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in its Full Bench judgment, as referred hereinabove, if not coupled with the rent receipt, issued by the exlandlord has got no evidentiary value to substantiate the right and title over the land in question. Further, it is evident that the petitioners have failed to show any document, substantiating that their names having entered in the Register II, since the petitioners have not produced any document to that effect.

¶23

In view of the settled legal position, as indicated hereinabove and taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the impugned order to the effect that no such documents have been filed by the petitioners, the order impugned is not in nature, warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuance of writ of certiorari, since the scope of issuance of writ of certiorari is very limited, which can be issued only when, if there is an apparent error on the face of the impugned order or the order is without jurisdiction or there is infringement of fundamental right, but none of the conditions has been made out by the petitioners.

¶24

In view thereof, this writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶26

APK

Hamid Mian And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid Mian And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Rabidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gopal Singh Bhumij Alias Gopal Bhumij Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kanhai Soni Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Tulsi Dutta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Its Manager Revenue Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department

Santosh Kumar Majee Vs State of Jharkhand