Single judge quashed order cancelling petitioner's 60-year settled land rights and denied compensation claim for acquisition, ruling lower authority erred by mechanically rejecting evidence without reasoning.
Order dated 10.03.2003 in Raiyati Manyata Case No.84/2002 by Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh quashed; writ petition allowed.
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. 2408 of 2008
Geeta Devi
.... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
.. ... ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate For the respondents-State : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, Advocate
15/ 04.07.2022 .
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner- Geeta Devi has preferred the instant writ petition to set aside the order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag in “Raiyati Manyata” Case No.84 of 2002-2003 for the land situated in Khata No.288, Plot No.1785, Rakba 140 decimals in Village- Kadma II, P.S. Katkamsandi has been cancelled i.e. after about 60 years of its settlement and after issuance of the rent receipts, which were issued in favour of the petitioner since 1955, whereas the land was settled in favour of the petitioner through Hukumnama by the competent authority/ zamindar in Sambat 2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that Raghuwar Dayal Singh settled land in Village Kadma No.II under Khata No.288, Plot No.1785, area 2.80 decimals in favour of the petitioner through a hukumnama on fixed yearly rent/Malguzari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that after vesting of zamindari in the State of Bihar, on the basis of hukumnama, zamindari rent receipts was granted by the landlord and the petitioner received rent and State rent receipts dated 31.03.1955 was issued in favour of the petitioner and since, then period the petitioner is paying rent to the State and the same has been entered in the Government Register no.-II bearing page no.223, Vol. III and the petitioner is paying rent since 1957 till 1979-1980.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that in the year 1980, the rent receipt has been stopped issuing in favour of the petitioner and thereafter a Misc. Case No.-23/90-91 was filed before the Circle Officer. Upon enquiry vide order dated 17.02.1991in Misc.Cse No.23/90-91, the Circle Office directed the Revenue Karamchari to issue rent receipt for the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner.
-2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that in view of the aforesaid direction, the rent receipt has been issued by the competent authority till 2003. The petitioner is in the peaceful possession of the land in dispute and growing crops over the said land.The portion of said land of Plot No.1785 of the petitioner i.e. about 1.40 acre, has been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the Railway Line in the year 2002, for which the petitioner has not been paid any compensation by the State Authorities also.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that illegal proceeding has been initiated vide Rayati Manyata Case wherein, the Circle Officer passed the order in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 10.01.2003, which was affirmed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector vide order dated 11.01.2003 in “Raiyati Manyata” Case No.84/2002- 2003 in favour of the petitioner, but the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (vide Annexure 6 at page nos. 40 & 41 of the writ petition) rejected the recommendation of the Circle Officer, LRDC, Hazaribagh and passed order on 10.03.2003 against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh rejecting the case of Raiyati Manyatra vide his order dated 10.03.2003 is bad in law as the same has been ordered mechanically rejecting the order passed by the DCLR, Hazaribagh and the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that from perusal of the order of the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh and the DCLR, Hazaribagh wherein it is evident that the land is in the possession of the petitioner, whose jamabandi has been recorded in the Registered-II page no.223, Vol. III in the records, in the name of the petitioner and has mentioned that the rent receipt of the aforesaid land has been issued from the year, 1955 to 1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh without perusing the observation along with documents which has already been brought on record, in a very cryptic and mechanically manner passed an order against the petitioner without assigning any proper reason. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh without stating the reason declared the rent receipt issued in the year, 1955, 1957 to be suspicious and dismissed the Raiyati Manyata Case No.84 of 2002-2003 stating that the same has not been issued by the competent authority/ officer and
-3-
denied that document with regard to the said land which has been brought on record before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Khiru Gope vs. L.R.D.C. reported in 1983 PLJR 727 whereby it has been held, that no authority was given to the collector under the Bihar Land Reforms Act to cancel a Jamabandi made in favour of a settlee from the exintermediary and the Anchal Adhikari and the Karamchari were competent to make necessary entries in the Tenants register and open jamabandi and fix rent in relation to such a settled land in favour of the settlee. It has also been held that the jamabandi can be opened on the report of karamchari themselves, as such, it was within competence of Anchal Adhikari to open jamabandi. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: -
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that the long running jamabandi of the petitioner cannot be doubted and cancelled after span of more than 60 years, as such,the order of the Deputy collector, Hazaribagh is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that the jamabandi, which has been created almost 60 years back and the rent receipt has been issued in the year, 1957, but the objection has been raised in the year, 1991, but the same was already clarified by the order dated 17.02.1991 in Misc. Case No.- 23/90-91, as such, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh declaring rent receipts suspicious and not by the
-4-
competent authority is bad in law, as the long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled after a gap of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh has further submitted, that state authority in the counter-affidavit dated 14-06-2022 has categorically stated that there is an entry of jamabandi in the name of Geeta Devi in Register -II Volume- 3, page 223, plot no.1785, area measuring 2.69 acre and Plot no.1644, area 0.11-acre, total area 2.80, as such, the order passes by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I has submitted, that the nature of the land as per the revenue record on the basis of Tauzi and in absence of survey Khatian, is Gairmazarua Khash land.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I has submitted, that in the record of rights, in the old Registered-II, jamabandi was not found in the name of the petitioner- Geeta Devi nor any corresponding entry in Register-II and in the new Register-II in the column Pradhikar which contains remark/ order of competent revenue authority corresponding to opening of jamabandi, no such remark/ order/ signature of competent authority is available although there is entry of cancellation of Jamabandi in reference to order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh regarding cancellation of Jamabandi as per the order passed in Raiyati Manyata Case No.84/2002.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I has further submitted, that contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the compensation of the acquisition of the aforesaid land, is not tenable as the land is Gair Mazaruwa Khas Land and the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation in view of the acquisition made by the Railway.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, it appears to this Court that the land pertaining to Khata No.288, Plot No.1785 admeasuring an area of 2.69 acres and Plot No.1644, Area 0.11 acres, total 2.80 acres of Village- Kadma, District- Hazaribagh has been settled from ex-intermediary Raghubar Dayal Singh through hukumnama dated 10.06.1942. After, vesting of the Estate jamabandi was opened in the name of the petitioner and the same has been entered in the Government Registered-II and subsequently, the rent receipt were issued in the year, 1955 and the petitioner was paying the rent and was in the possession of the aforesaid land since then. The rent receipt for the aforesaid land has been stopped by the revenue karamchari, in the year, 1979-80 against which Miscellaneous Case No.23 of 1991-90 was
-5-
instituted before the Circle Officer and the Circle Officer upon the enquiry, directed the revenue karamchari to issue rent receipt vide its order dated 17.02.1991 and then,the rent receipts were issued accordingly.
It also appears that the petitioner was in the peaceful possession of the aforesaid land and cultivating land. Further, Raiyati Manyata Case No.84/2002 was instituted, when the compensation was denied in lieu of the acquisition of the petitioner's land by the State for the purpose of the railway line.
It also appears that the order passed by the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh, Raiyati Manyata Case No.84/2002 dated 10.01.2003, which was affirmed by LRDC, Hazaribagh, vide its order dated 11.01.2003, in favour of the petitioner. The order of the above two courts were reversed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh rejecting the recommendation made by the order of the Circle Officer and the DCLR, Hazaribagh in favour of the petitioner.
From perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh it seems that the Deputy Commissioner over looked the reasoning and evidences, which has been recorded by the courts below rather the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh declare the rent receipts issued with regard to the aforesaid land to be suspicious, which has been issued by the competent authority.
It is also pertinent to mention here that order passed by the DCLR, Hazaribagh, dated 11.01.2003 in Raiyati Manyata Case No.84/2002, wherein the reference of the Miscellaneous Case No.23/1990-91has been made and the same has been recorded, whereupon the authorities concerned, upon enquiry directed the karamchari for the issuance of rent receipt in the year 1991.
It also appears from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh was passed without any cogent evidence and reasoning assigned and therein and declaring the rent receipt to be suspicious has been passed without assigning any cogent reason in very cryptic and mechanically manner resulting into the dismissal of the Raiyati Miscellaneous Case No.84 of 2002-03, which is not tenably at this juncture.
It also appears from the perusal of the counter-affidavit dated 14.06.2002, wherein it has been categorically stated by the respondent-State authorities that the name of the petitioner is not in the record in the old Registered-II and the authorities are unable to produce details of the rent receipts as the old Registered -II is in torn condition and in dilapidated state. It is also stated that the name of the petitioner i.e., Geeta Devi has already been recorded in the record on rights, in new Registered-II-page No.223 Vol-III.
-6-
It is surprising for this Court, that once the jamabandi was created and rent receipts were issued long back in the year, 1955 then how the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh declared such rent receipts and jamabandi suspicious and not issued by the competent authority. It is the settled proposition that long running jamabandi, which has been created for all most 50 years back, cannot be cancelled in such manner without giving reasonable explanation and mere on the basis of the cryptic order. The same has also been held in the case Khiru Gope(supra). The respondents-State lack knowledge about the Gair Mazaruwa Khas Land, which has been enumerated by this Court time and again, in the catena of judgments.
It also appears to this court that rent receipt for 1.40 acres of land pertaining to Khata No.288 was issued to the petitioner since 1955 till 1995. The name of the petitioner has been entered in the new Registered-II, Vol.III, which has not been objected for approx. 50 years and old Registered-II which is in dilapidated state, upon which the respondents-State is putting reliance and failed to produce the same, does not debar the right or cancel the jamabandi recorded in the name of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was in the records of right i.e. in new Registered II, which is apparent from the Counter affidavit by the state and the remarks against the such entry for the cancellation of jamabandi has been entered in reference to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh through Rayati Manyata Case, which is non sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the order dated 10.03.2003 passed in Raiyati Manyata Case No.84/2002 by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner could cancel a long-standing jamabandi and declarerent receipts suspicious without cogent evidence or reasoning.
Whether the order of Deputy Commissioner running contrary to lower authoritieswas sustainable in law.
Whether compensation was denied in lieu of the petitioner's land acquisition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khiru Gope vs. L.R.D.C.Relied on¶24
1983 PLJR 727
Harihar Singh v. The Additional Collector and othersRelied on¶25
1978 Bihar Bar Council Journal 323
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Geeta Devi
The State of Jharkhand
KAILASH PRASAD DEO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
