Dismissed

Birendra Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Mar 2022WPC/4394/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue orders redistricting disputed land. The Court found the petitioners seeking title declaration were not entitled to writ interference and were correctly directed to seek civil remedies while liberty was granted for mutation correction post-decree.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed directing petitioners to approach civil court for title declaration; liberty granted for mutation correction after civil decree.

Birendra Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.(C ) No. 4394 of 2004

¶2

Birendra Singh & Ors.

¶3

.... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand & Ors.

¶6

.. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶7

........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶8

......... For the Petitioners : None For the respondents/State : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I For the Pvt. Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate

¶9

13/ 08.03.2022 . No body appeared on behalf of the petitioners, on repeated calls.

¶10

2 . However, Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the private respondent(s) assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri are present.

¶11

3 . It appears that the instant Writ Petition has been filed by writ petitioners, Birendra Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Sanjay Singh and Mostt. Champa Devi for quashing the order dated 26.06.1996 passed by the Circle Officer Itkhori, Chatra (Annexure-5), whereby the Circle Officer cancelled the long running Jamabandi (i.e. name of the petitioner as Raiyat of the estate in Register-II in respect of Plot No.214 appertaining to Khata No.1 measuring an area of 7.70 acres of VillageNawadih, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District- Chatra) giving half of the said raiyati land to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 [ Kapil Singh & Sudhir Singh, both sons of Late Bisho Singh] illegally and behind the back of the petitioners.

¶12

4 . It further appears that the said order was assailed before the Court of LRDC, Chatra in Mutation Appeal No.21/2001 which was allowed in terms of the order dated 10.12.2001 (Annexure-6) but the order of LRDC has been rejected by the court of Additional Collector, Chatra vide order dated 01.09.2003 in Case No.27/2002 (Annexure-7) and order of Additional Collector, Chatra has been affirmed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag vide order dated 17.03.2004 passed in Mutation Revision No.86 of 2003 which has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition.

¶13

5 . It appears that the petitioners have prayed that these orders of Additional Collector, Chatra and Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag have been passed without taking into the notice of the documents which have been brought on record by the Circle Officer, Itkhori, Chatra.

¶14

6 . From perusal of the records, it appears that land of Plot No.214 appertaining to Khata No.1, measuring 7.70 acres, Village- Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.-Itkhori, District- Chatra, was originally recorded in the Cadestral Survey, records of right in the names Khirodhar Singh and Charan Singh under the ex-landlord Raja Ram

¶15

¶16

Narayan Singh, Raja of Padma. Since Khirodhar Singh was the elder brother and Charan Singh being the younger brother at that time constituted a joint Hindu family, which was headed by Karta, Khirodhar Singh, as such, the rent was paid to the ex-landlord by Karta, Khirodhar Singh and after death of ex-landlord, Khirodhar Singh was paying rent to wife of ex-landlord i.e. Rani Rishinath Kunwar.

¶17

7 . Khirodhar Singh defaulted in payment of rent and accordingly the landlady Rani Rishinath Kunwar brought a Rent Suit against said Khirodhar Singh as the head of the family claiming arrears of rent and obtained a rent decree against the said Khirodhary Singh. After securing the said rent decree, ex-landlady, Rani Rishinath Kunwar executed the said rent decree in Execution Case No.20/1920-21 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, and in the said execution case since rent was not deposited, the properties were auction-sold and a certificate of sale in respect of the said auction-sale was granted to Rani Rishinath Kunwar on 11.09.1920 in full-satisfaction of the execution case. Thereafter Rani Rishinath Kunwar became full owner of the land and the said land became Bakast land of the said Rani Rishinath Kunwar.

¶18

8 . It further appears that said Khirodhar Singh in the meanwhile had relinquished the world and his brother Charan Singh separated from the joint family of his elder brother and started living separately, while the family of Khirodhar Singh also started living separately. After the land became bakast of the landlady, Rani Rishinath Kunwar and she settled the same land to Charan Singh by executing a registered Kabuliat on 14.04.1924 and thus, granted hukumnama with respect to 7.70 acres of land. Since then Charan Singh had been in continuous exclusive physical possession of the said land and remained in uninterrupted possession openly and adversely to all concerned and there was absolutely no interference or obstruction in his exclusive possession.

¶19

9 . After vesting of the estate by the State under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the said tenancy of Charan Singh was acknowledged and recognized by the then State of Bihar and his name was entered into the tenant Register, Register-II of the State of Bihar. The said Charan Singh accordingly paid rent to the State of Bihar right from the date of vesting in the year 1953-54 and also obtained rent receipts continuously.

¶20

10 . It further appears that said Charan Singh died leaving behind petitioner no.1 and 2 as sons and other petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner no.3 [ Sanjay Singh] died and his legal heirs have been substituted as 3(i) Most. Purnima Devi (wife), 3(ii)Gunjan Kumar Singh

¶21

¶22

(son), 3(iii) Juli Kumari (Daughter) and 3(iv) Chhoti (Daughter). In the year, 2001, when the petitioners went to pay their rent, which was arrears for sometime of land of Khata No.1, the Petitioners were told by the Halka Karmachari, that rent of half area has already been separated in favour of respondent nos.6 & 7, as such, the rent of 3.85 acres of land is to be paid by the sons and legal heirs of Late Charan Singh,

¶23

11 . Being aggrieved of that the petitioner(s) preferred mutation appeal before the LRDC, Chatra vide Mutation Appeal No.2 of 2001, which was allowed in terms of order dated 10.12.2001, against which the respondents Nos,6 & 7preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Chatra vide Mutation Revision No.27 of 2002, whereby, the order of the Circle Officer, Itkhori, has been affirmed and order of the LRDC, Chatra has been reversed. Against the said order, the petitioner(s) preferred Mutation Revision in the Court of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh vide Mutation Revision No.86/2003, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, in terms of the order dated 17.03.2004 has upheld the orders of the Circle Officer, Itkhori and Additional Collector, Chatra, directing the petitioner(s) to prefer an application before the competent court of Civil law for declaration of their claim.

¶24

12 . Being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition before this Court.

¶25

13 . However, no body appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

¶26

14 . It appears that the instant Writ Petition is pending before this Court since the year 2004. This Court has perused the materials brought and heard Mr. P.C. Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.6 & 7, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior advocate.

¶27

15 . Mr. P.C. Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I for the State has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and the legal remedy is available to the petitioners to file an application before the competent court of civil law for declaration of their documents to be valid and operative. The revenue court is not granting title to a person but only showing possession and since, after verification, the Circle Officer, Itkhori, has found possession of both the parties as such, 50% of rent was collected from the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Charan Sngh and 50% of rent was collected from the respondent nos.6 & 7, namely, Kapil Singh and Sudhir Singh, both legal heirs of Khirodhar Singh, as such, this Hon’ble Court may not interfere with the same.

¶28

16 . Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior advocate has also submitted the same.

¶29

-4-

¶30

17 . Having gone through the materials available on records and having heard, Mr. P.C. Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondents, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed, as the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh has rightly directed the petitioners to approach the competent court having jurisdiction of civil law on the basis of the documents, they wanted to place for declaration of their title over entire land as order of Mutation does not confer the title.

¶31

18 . However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the revenue authorities for correction in mutation order after having a decree from competent court of law.

¶32

19 . Pending, I.As., if any stands closed.

¶33

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J. )

¶34

Sandeep/

Birendra Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Singh And Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjit Mehta And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

1b Nand Lal Pal Vs Chhaku Bala Dasi And Ors.

Jaymani Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Town Development Department

Tata Steel Limited Vs the Concerned Workman through Their Legal Heirs

M/S Lakeshwari Builders Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Head Master,K.N.High School Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.