High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order categorically holding that revenue authorities lack the power to cancel existing Jamabandi without a declaration by a competent civil court.
Petitioners granted liberty to raise grievances before the competent civil court.
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 (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 1109 of 2020
….....
Sudeshwar Prasad & Others Versus
…. ..... Petitioners
The State of Jharkhand & Others …. ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
…......... For the Petitioners : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Ms. Priti Priyamvada, A.C. to Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V. ........
06/03.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Aman Kumar has submitted that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar in Miscellaneous Revenue Appeal No.157/2000, whereby the appeal preferred by Ashok Sao @ Ashok Prasad, herein respondent No.4 has been allowed, which has been preferred against the order dated 21.08.2000 in Misc. Case No.09/1996-97 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau, whereby the Additional Collector, Palamau has cancelled the jamabandi of Raj Kumar Sao, father of Ashok Sao @ Ashok Prasad, over the land of Khata No.6 appertaining to Plot No.192 of Village- Maghigaon, P.O.-Lamipatra, P.S.- Pandwa, District- Palamau, which was running in the name of Nand Kumar Prasad @ Nand Kumar Sao.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that without proper notice to the petitioners, impugned order dated 14.02.2019 has been passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar, without following the principle of natural justice and order dated 21.08.2000 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in Misc. Case No.09/1996-97 has been set aside without valid reason and as such, the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar may be set aside as the same has been passed without hearing the petitioners by restoring the order of learned Additional Collector, Palamau.
Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Priti Priyamvada, A.C. to Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V has opposed the prayer and has submitted that
-2-
order of learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar is absolutely correct, that no revenue authority has right to cancel the old Jamabandi and title can be declared by the competent court of civil jurisdiction.
In the present case the order of the Additional Collector, Palamau passed in Misc. Case No.09/1996-97 dated 21.08.2000, whereby the Jamabandi has been created in the name of Raj Kumar Sao, father of Ashok Sao @ Ashok Prasad and others have been cancelled, has rightly been set aside by learned Commissioner, Palamau, which was running vide Rent Fixation Case No.04/1968-69 over the land of Khata No.6 appertaining to Plot No.192 of Village- Maghigaon, P.O.-Lamipatra, P.S.Pandwa, District- Palamau.
Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court towards the order-sheets of learned Commissioner, Palamau that the order No.30 dated 10.01.2006, order No.38 dated 03.04.2007, order No.41 dated 12.09.2007, order No.45 dated 07.05.2008, order No.59 dated 25.08.2010 and order No.66 dated 10.05.2012, whereby the learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar has issued notice to the respondents, who are the writ petitioners before this Court, they have appeared and filed their reply, but they have not appeared for a quite long time, as such, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar has passed order on the basis of materials available on record, holding that, revenue Courts have no rights to cancel the old running Jamabandi, as such, the present writ petition may be dismissed.
Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Aman Kumar has submitted that, this Court may grant liberty to the petitioners to raise this point, before the competent Civil Court for declaration of title / recovery of possession or confirmation of possession in accordance with law and the writ petition may be disposed of.
Considering the rival submissions, this Court has perused the entire materials brought on record and the order-sheet of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar. It appears that the writ petitioners were duly noticed, they have appeared and filed their reply and as such, the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner,
-3-
Palamau Division, Medninagar is absolutely in accordance with law that the Revenue authority has no right to cancel any running Jamabandi. It is only competent court of Civil jurisdiction, which can interfere with regard to declaration of title, recovery of possession or confirmation of possession in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to raise their grievances before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revenue authority has the power to cancel a running Jamabandi in the absence of a civil court judgment.
Sudeshwar Prasad & Others
The State of Jharkhand
Ashok Sao
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
