Allowed

The Consultants Cooperative Sw v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Mar 2022WPC/4276/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition against revenue authorities for canceling a long-standing jamabandi of a housing society. The court held that cancellation without proving fraud is impermissible and directed the Additional Chief Secretary to address confusion regarding land classification causing frivolous litigation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned revenue orders are quashed. The Additional Chief Secretary is directed to take notice of the observations to prevent future confusion and litigation.

The Consultants Cooperative Sw Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 4276 of 2010

¶4

….....

¶5

The Consultants Cooperative Swablambi Housing Society Limited a registered Society registered under the Self Supporting Societies Act, 1996 formerly known as The Consultants Cooperative Housing Construction Society Limited, having its office at MECON Limited, Doranda, Ranchi.-2 …. ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶9

Additional Collector, Ranchi.

¶10

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi.

¶11

Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi.

¶12

Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi

¶13

…. ..... Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate. : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G.A.-II

¶16

13/14.03.2022.

¶17

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Learned senior counsel, Mr. V. P. Singh assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha and Mrs. Rashmi Kumar has submitted that the petitioner- the Consultants Cooperative Swablambi Housing Society Limited has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.07.2007 passed by Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.02/2007-08 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which, the learned Circle Officer has illegally recommended for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner's Society with respect to the lands measuring an Area-11.49 Acres out of Plot Nos. 3737, 3728 and 3727 of Khata No.365 situated at Mauza- Simalia, P.S.Ratu, District – Ranchi.

¶19

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the said order of the Circle Officer has been affirmed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.02/2007-08 in terms of order dated 30.05.2008 contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition and further recommended in terms of order dated 14.06.2008, which has been brought on record as Annxure-9 to the writ petition for

¶20

-2-

¶21

cancellation of the jamabandi on the basis of recommendation of Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi and further recommended that record be sent to the Additional Collector, Ranchi through S.D.O., Sadar, Ranchi.

¶22

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further prayed, for quashing of order dated 03.07.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.02/2007-08 contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which, recommendation was made by the Additional Collector for cancellation of demand with respect to the aforementioned lands and further prayed for quashing of order dated 14.07.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.02/2007-08, contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition, whereby learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, without considering the materials on the record and the relevant provision of law has arbitrarily and erroneously passed an order cancelling long standing Jamabandi with respect to the aforementioned lands.

¶23

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the lands measuring an Area 111/68 Acres of Khewat No.19/2 situated at Village- Simalia, P.S.- Ratu, District- Ranchi was owned and possessed by Syed Shahadulla Shah having acquired the same, on account of auction purchase dated 19.11.1895 and 18.03.1904 respectively, which is evident from the entries made in remarks column of Khewat of the said village, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The said Syed Shahdulla Shah remained in possession of the lands so long alive and after his death, there was a partition suit being partition suit No. 91 of 1948 amongst the family members of Syed Shahdulla Shah and in the said partition suit, Syed Multan Shah and Syed Sultan Shah both sons of Syed Shahdulla Shah got 9 (nine) Annas (9/16th) share in the aforementioned lands. The said suit was decreed and the pleader commissioner submitted his report and possession was duly given and Sk. Najib and other have also got possession of 6 (six) Annas share. The report of the Pleader Commissioner's showing possession of the land has been brought on record as Annexure - 2 to this writ petition. On the eve of vesting, the Ex. Landlord submitted ‘M' Form from which it would appear, that Sk. Najib and others were in possession of the lands allotted in their share. The photo copy of the form 'M' has been brought on record as

¶24

-3-

¶25

Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

¶26

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the land of R.S. Khata No. 365, plot no. 3737, area 1.50 acres being sub plot no. 3737/1, situated at Village- Simalia, P. S. - Ratu, District- Ranchi have been purchased by the Consultant Cooperative House Construction Society Limited, Mecon Ranchi from Sheikh Alaudin, Sheikh Gafoor and Sheikh Surmali, sons of Sheikh Niyamat by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed no. 12261 for valuable consideration and the society came into possession and is still continuing in possession. The said society after purchase got its name mutated vide Mutation Case No. 260 R 27/1993-94, which attains finality as there was no appeal against the said order.

¶27

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 1.50 acres of land being portion of R. S. Plot No. 3737 marked as sub plot 3737/G of Khata No. 365 of the said village from Sheikh Alimuddin, Sheikh Umer Ali, Sheikh Sobrati and Sheikh Mohammad, sons of late Sheikh Jamir by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed no. 12218 for valuable consideration and came into possession and its name mutated vide Mutation Case No. 261R 27 of 1993- 94 in the Anchal office, Kanke. There was no appeal against the said order, which became final, conclusive and binding on the state as well as on the other opposite parties.

¶28

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 1.50 acres of land being portion of R.S., Plot No. 3737 marked as sub plot no. 3737/C of khata No. 365 of the said village from Anand Hazam son of Late Ajinath Hazam by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed No. 12215/ deed of rectification dated 13.03.1992 being deed No. 2317 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still continuing in possession. The society got its name mutated vide mutation case No. 262R 27/1993- 94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke, which also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶29

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner’s society also purchased 1.50 acres of land being portion of

¶30

-4-

¶31

R. S. Plot No. 3737 marked as sub plot no. 3737/D of khata No. 365 of the said village from Sheikh Akbar son of Late Sheikh Badu by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed no. 12211 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still continuing in possession. The society got its name mutated vide mutation case No. 263 R 27 of 1993- 94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke, which also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶32

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 1.50 acres of land being portion of R.S. Plot No. 3737 marked as sub plot No. 3737/F of Khata No. 365 of the said village from Sheikh Nazib son of late Sheikh Badu by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed No. 12210 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still Continuing in possession. The society got its name mutated vide Mutation case No. 264 R 27 of 1993-94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke and same also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶33

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 1.50 acres of land being portion of R. S. Plot No. 3737 marked as sub plot no. 3737/E of khata no. 365 of the said village from Digambar Paramanik, Narayan Pramanik and Naresh Pramanik sons of late Bhikhari Hazam by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed no. 12213 for valuable consideration and came into possession. The society got its mutated vide Mutation case No. 265 R 27/1993- 94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke and same also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶34

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 0.52 acres of land being portion of R. S. Plot No. 3737 of khata No. 365 and 0.98 acres of land being portion of R. S. Plot No. 3728 of khata No. 353 of the said village from Lattu Mahto son of Late Bal Govind Mahto, Mahendra Mahto son of late Karma Mahto and Mahadhan Mahto son of late Tirtu Mahto by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed No.12212 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still continuing in possession. The society got its name mutated vide Mutation

¶35

-5-

¶36

case No. 266 R 27/1993-94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke and same also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶37

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 1.50 acres of land being portion of R. S. Plot No. 3737 marked as sub plot no. 3737/H of khata no. 365 of the said village from Sheikh Imam Ali son of Late Sheikh Kailu by virtue deed no. 12214 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still continuing in possession. The society got its mutated vide mutation case No. 267 R 27/1993-94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke and same also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶38

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 0.37 acres of land being portion of R. S. Plot no. 3737 marked as sub plot no. 3737/K of khata No. 365 besides others land of the said village from Sheikh Jummauddin and Sheikh Niyazuddin sons of late Sheikh Akbar by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 26.04.1993 being deed no. 3629 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still continuing in possession. The society got its name mutated vide mutation case No. 372 R 27/ 199394 in the Anchal Office, Kanke and same also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶39

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's society also purchased 0.19 acres of land being portion of R.S. Plot No. 3727 of khata No. 365 of the said village from Parku Mahto and Ramu Mahto sons of late Koka Mahto by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 07.12.1991 being deed no. 12217 for valuable consideration and came into possession of the same and is still continuing in possession. The society got its name mutated vide Mutation case No. 259 R 27 /1993 - 94 in the Anchal Office, Kanke and same also attains finality in absence of any appeal.

¶40

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that from the facts stated above, it would be evident that the petitioners society purchased the entire 11.02 acres of land comprised within R. S Plot No. 3737 of khata No. 365, 0.19 acres comprised within R. S. Plot No. 3727 of khata no. 365 and 0.98 acre of R. S plot no. 3728 under khata no. 365 of

¶41

-6-

¶42

the said village and acquired absolute and indefeasible title and is continuing in possession since the time of purchase.

¶43

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner's cooperative Society filed petition before the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi on 30.08.2007 requesting him to accept rent with respect to the aforementioned lands and issue rent receipts in the name of the petitioner's society as the jamabandi is running in the name and a reminder to that effect was also given on 11.09.2007, which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 and 4/A to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner's society was surprised to receive a notice issued by the D.C.L.R, Sadar, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2007-08, asking the petitioner's society to file show cause. The same has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner's society filed objection before the DCLR, Ranchi stating full facts of the case along with the relevant documents, praying therein to accept rent with respect to the lands under preceding. The same has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the C.O. Kanke, Ranchi in terms of order dated 13.07.2007 illegally recommended for cancellation of demand with respect to the lands measuring 11.49 acres out of plot nos. 3737, 3727 and 3728 of khata no. 365 of village - Simalia, P. S. Ratu, District – Ranchi, which has been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and subsequent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities have been brought on record as Annexures- 8, 9, 10 and 11 to the writ petition.

¶44

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is surprising that a jamabandi, which is running on the basis of several registered sale deeds since the year 1993-94 has been cancelled by the respondent- authorities without any valid reason, only on the ground, that when petitioner went to pay rent in the year 2007, such notice has been issued.

¶45

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the Circle Officer, unless and until, it is alleged that same has been obtained on fraud. The persons, who have sold the land never challenge the sale deed nor have filed any objection

¶46

-7-

¶47

before the Revenue Authority, but even then such order is being passed in Revenue side by the Circle Officer. This has become a trend in the State of Jharkhand in the Revenue Department because of their pre charge and post charge for their posting.

¶48

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that to examine the assets of the Circle Officer, this Court may also recommend proceeding under Section 13(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, which is the only legal remedy available to curtail such illegality committed by Revenue side, can be initiated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that several cases have been considered by this Court in writ side, arising out of the district of Ranchi with regard to Khata no.383 of Mouza- Pundag, with regard to Khata no.373 of Mouza – Simalia, where such orders are being passed by the Revenue Authority without any basis, as if, they have become monarch of this State, at least of their revenue Circle.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G.A.-II has referred the counter affidavit filed on 01.07.2013 by the then Circle Officer, Sanjay Kumar son of late Ayodhya Prasad stating therein relevant facts at paras-10 to 14, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

¶51

“ 10. That it is stated and submitted that in course of examining the Demand Register of Mouza- Simaliya, it was detected by the concerning Revenue Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, Kanke that the Jamabandi in respect of the land of Mouza-Simaliya, Khata No. 365, Plot No. 3737, 3727 and 3728, area -11.02 Acres, 0.19 Acre and 0.28 Acre respectively making total area -11.49 Acres, with other Khata was running jointly in the name of Devendra Kumar Singh, Secretary Consultant, Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti and others based on Mutation Case No. 259R27 of 1993-94, 267R27 of 1993-94 and Mutation Case No.363 to 376 at page No.174 of the Register-II, Volume VI. Only one rent receipt no. 545683 dated 24.02.1995, year 1994-95 has been issued. It has been written by the then Circle Inspector, Kanke on 03.12.1994: - "There is no mention as to from which page this demand has been brought forwarded and hence no correction would have been made in that page. Issue rent receipt after necessary and

¶52

-8-

¶53

correction."

¶54

11. That it is stated and submitted that the Jamabandi in respect of the said land was also running in the name of S.K. Hanif sons of S.K. Bandhu; S. K. Neyamat, S/o S.K. Md. Ali, S.K. Jamir, S/o S.K. Sohrai; S.K. Imam Ali, S/o S.K. Ballu and Bhirkhari Hazam and Anand Hazam, sons of Bal Govind and Koka Mahto S/o Binand Mahto and Nageshwar Hazam S/o Bahuram Hazam at Page No.752, Volume IV of the Register II. The basis for opening of Jamabandi, has not been mentioned in the Register II. Thus, parallel Jamabandi of the same land was running in the Register II.

¶55

12. That it is stated and submitted that the land of Mouza - Simaliya, P.S. No.139, Khata No. 365, Plot No. 3737, 3727 and 3728 stands recorded as “Gair Mazrua Malik" land in the Revislonal Survey Record of Rights. The parallel Jamabandi of the land in question was running in the Register II in Volume IV and VI.

¶56

13. That it is stated and submitted that the land in question is vacant and no one is in possession of the land in question. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, a miscellaneous proceeding being Case No. 02 of 2007-08 was initiated for annulment of the said parallel Jamabandi which was at the level of the Circle Officer, Kanke and it was forwarded and recommended to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi.

¶57

14. That it is stated and submitted that the then learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi heard the parties and examined the documents filed by the opposite party, the Consultants Co-operative Housing Construction Society Ltd. It has been held by him that the society has purchased the land by virtue of different sale deeds from the opposite party no. 02 to 10. No document with regard to settlement or rent fixation of the "Gair Mazrua Khas" land was produced. So, it could not be ascertained as to how the "Gair Mazrua Malik" land was made into raiyati land. The land is Part and agricultural work was never done on the land in question. Thus, the then learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi came to the conclusion that the Jamabandi of the land in question created in the Register II was doubtful. Under the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the said miscellaneous proceeding record was forwarded and recommended to the Additional Collector, Ranchi for annulment of the said jamabandi in terms of order dated 30.05.2008 through the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi.”

¶58

-9-

¶59

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has further submitted, that this Court may not interfere with such orders and may direct the petitioner to go before the competent court of civil jurisdiction in title suit.

¶60

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that such counter affidavit filed by the Circle Officer invites attention of this Court to direct the Anti-corruption Bureau to examine the assets of such Circle Officers, who have no respect for the law of the land.

¶61

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that reply to counter-affidavit has been filed on 07.08.2014. Paragraph-9- (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the same may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

¶62

“9. That the statements made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit are misleading hence, denied. The detail and correct facts have already been stated in the writ application.

¶63

However, the petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to repeat them once

¶64

again.

¶65

(a) Mutation of land against plot no. 3727, 3728 and 3737 all under Khata No. 365 (Gairmajarua Malik) measuring 11.49 acres was allowed to the Consultants Cooperative Housing Construction Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner or the society only) in the year 1993-94. This Jamabandi has been cancelled by DC/Ranchi.

¶66

(b) The Society purchased land for its members from Sheikh Najih and others between the year 1991 to 1995 progressively and got the land under possession by constructing boundary wall all around the land between the year 1992 to 1995.

¶67

(c) Thereafter Society got 25.89 acres of land mutated through 24 nos of correction slips in the year 1993 and paid rent upto financial year 1994-95 vide receipt no. 545683 dated 24/2/1995.

¶68

(d) The society wanted to pay rent till date and approached several time to Respondent CO, Kanke Anchal but it was told that RECEIPTS FOR RENT not available and are under printing. Having known that RECEIPTS are available at Kanke Anchal, the society made written request to Circle Officer, Kanke Anchal vide letter dated 30.08.2007 to direct concerned Karamchari to receive rent and issue rent receipt.

¶69

(e) Getting no reply from Respondent CO, Kanke a reminder was given to him vide letter No. CONCOP/CH/09/01 dated 11^th September 2007 to direct concerned Karamchari to receive rent against the land.

¶70

(f) In response to above letters, Respondent DCLR, Ranchi issued notice under Case No. 2/07-08 and TR 41/2007-08 dated 10.12.2007 to two persons namely.

¶71

-10-

¶72

i) Devendra Kumar Singh, Secretary, The Consultants Cooperative Housing Construction Society (the deponent),

¶73

ii) Sheikh Najir and others.

¶74

(g) In the said notice both parties were asked to produce original documents related to following land.

¶75

Mouza	Khata No.	Plot No.	Area	Classification of land
	365	3727	0.19 Acres
Simalia PS No139	365	3728	0.28 Acres	Gairmajarua Malik
.	365	3737	11.02 Acres
		Total	11.49 Acres

¶76

(h) Accordingly the Society represented the case through an Advocate. But second party did not turn up as they are dead. Their legal heirs had no interest in the said land as they are aware that the lands have already sold to the Society. Therefore, no representative appeared before the court of Respondent DCLR.”

¶77

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this Hon’ble Court may take notice of the facts, recorded by the Anchal Adhikari in Case no. 02 of 2007-2008 at page no.180 annexure-7, which is based upon the report submitted by Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, though they are non-Gazetted officer meaning thereby all the gazetted officers of the Revenue Department are relying upon the report of a non-gazetted officers.

¶78

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Chancla Devi and State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Dineshwar Prasad , L.P.A. Nos.142 of 2010 with 307 of 2009 reported in (2018) 2 JCR 486 . Para-10 (f) & (g) of the same may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

¶79

“ (f) These entries have also been continued for several years and abruptly in the year 2002, Halka Karamchari, who is lowest in the rank of Revenue Offices, has made a remark that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land from the year 1942.

¶80

(g) Thus, after 60 long years, the wisest man, who is lowest in the rank, in the revenue offices of the State of Jharkhand wrote one line that the land in question is Gair Majaruwa Malik Land and the high ranking Administrative Officers of the Revenue

¶81

-11-

¶82

Department build a castle upon it, which has resulted into several revenue 6 litigations and two writ petitions and two Letters Patent Appeals.”

¶83

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted, that it seems that Revenue Department should abolish all the post from the Circle Officer up to the post of Secretary as the report of Halka Karamchari is only the basis for their litigation before this Court.

¶84

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deprecates the act of Circle Officer, who initiates a proceeding on the basis of report submitted by Halka Karamchari, which is a Class-III post nor Gazetted post for cancellation of long standing jamabandi on flimsy grounds. Apart from that the Circle Officer or the Revenue Authority has no right to cancel a jamabandi without alleging that the same has obtained on the basis of fraud and that too without substantiating the same in proper manner so as to verify the documents.

¶85

This Court is surprised to see, that a Revenue Authority is becoming monarch of this State. Today this Court is not passing any order with regard to initiating a departmental proceeding and with regard to enquiry under Prevention and Corruption Act, but enough has been experienced by this Court compelling the Court to pass an order to initiate a proceeding under P. C. Act to examine the assets accumulated by the Government officer from the date of joining in service till the date when such enquiry is being initiated. This Court confines today only by giving a hint and suggestion to the State Government, otherwise this Court has unfettered power in such matters. If the State authorities shall not take proper action against the officers, this Court shall pass such order in future, as such, this Court is confining to the merits of this case in the present writ petition.

¶86

The revenue authorities are not alleging that the earlier mutation orders have been passed on the basis of fraud. The previous owners have also not filed any objection or claim that the registered sale deeds are null and void by taking appropriate remedy before competent court of law. The revenue authorities are also not clear with regard to Gairmajarua Khas or Malik land and its effect and Gairmajarua Aam land. The impugned

¶87

-12-

¶88

orders passed by revenue authorities are without any substance, as the petitioner has purchased these lands from rightful owner, got their name mutated in Govt. sarista and also paid rent. The said order or mutation was never assailed before the competent authority, rather attains finality, so far possession is covered, as such, impugned orders are non-sustainable.

¶89

This Court has considered the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of of State of Jharkhand vs. Izhar Hussain in SLP (C) No.8108 of 2021, wherein the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP arising out of LPA No.786 of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 05.11.2020, wherein the order challenged by the State has been dismissed arising from W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 in Izhar Hussain vs. State of Jharkhand, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has held that State cannot challenge the title of the petitioner under revenue jurisdiction and State after finding possession of petitioner has mutated the name of the petitioner and mutation never creates a title. The State has also not come up before this Court that they are claiming this land to be a Government land on any valid basis by taking legal recourse available under law.

¶90

The State is taking a plea that this land belongs to the Gairmazarua malik. This Court is surprised to see the legal acumen of such officer, who are required to under go proper training and apart from that they have not followed the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under the State litigation policy. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shubhan Ansari & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P.C. No.6802 of 2011 in terms of order dated 28.03.2012, has elaborately discussed that respondent- authority have passed a short and cryptic order without applying their mind on the basis that the land in question is a Gairmazarua khas. Obviously it is not a case that the land is Gairmazarua Aam and belong to the public or used for any public purposes.

¶91

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that all the revenue authorities are not following the State litigation policy. They are confused about Gairmazarua Aam and Gairmazarua khas or Malik land and thus passing such cryptic order

¶92

-13-

¶93

compelling the poor litigants of the State to prefer writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court with regard to the mutation. Thus flood with such writ petitions.

¶94

This Court directs the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand to take notice of all the observation made by this Court otherwise this Court is constrained to pass such order against the revenue authority.

¶95

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶96

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of learned Advocate General, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Director General of Police-cumChief of the Anti-corruption Bureau as well as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for their kind perusal and needful.

¶97

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶98

Jay/

The Consultants Cooperative Sw v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Consultants Cooperative Sw v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parbati Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Smt Victoria Nag Alias Smt Laxmi Devi Vs Water Resources Department

Birju Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Prasad Tiwari Vs Branch Manager Andhra Bank

Mathur Das Vs the State of Jharkhand