Allowed

Most Fatima Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretry And Ors.

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2023WPC/1447/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand set aside orders cancelling the petitioner's Jamabandi, relying on the precedent that a Jamabandi cannot be annulled absent specific statutory power. The court held that the remedy for challenging land titles lies in competent civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 22.07.2011 and 11.06.2015 cancelling the Jamabandi were set aside and the writ application was allowed.

Most Fatima Khatoon Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P (C) No. 1447 of 2017

¶3

Most. Fatima Khatoon ----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh

¶7

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh

¶8

Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh ----Respondents ---

¶9

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sahani & Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocates For the Resp.-State: Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C-III &

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C to Sr. S.C-III

¶13

¶14

15 / 01.08.2023 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 2) in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2014, affirming the order dated 22.07.2011, passed in Suspicious Case No. 01 of 2011-12 (Annexure-3), whereby the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner was cancelled by Respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh with respect to land appertaining to Khata No. 01, Plot No. 549 in Mouza Tewardag, District Ramgarh Measuring an area of 15.25 acres. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was recorded as Garmajarua Malik in the revenue records. The erstwhile Jamindar namely, Raja, Ramgarh settled the aforesaid land in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner namely, Sheikh Nabi Mohammad in the year 1935. Petitioner was paying rent to the Jamindar. After abolition of Jamindari, return was filed by the Jamindar, showing that the land in question was settled in the name of father-in-law of the petitioner.

¶15

It was submitted that Jamabandi was created in favour of the petitioner in the year 1954 and rent receipt was also issued. It was further submitted that the petitioner also paid rent between the years 1980 to 1985, for which rent receipts were issued. Issuance of rent receipts is also reflected in the revenue records.

¶16

Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned A.C to Sr. S.C-III, submits that the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 3) in Suspicious Case No. 01/1112 has come to the finding that the return filed by the erstwhile Jamindar Raja Ramgarh is not available. He has also come to the finding that the rent receipts issued between 1954-57 is not corroborated by any entry in the revenue records

¶17

¶18

so as to come to the conclusion that these rent receipts were validly issued by the competent authority. However, he has come to the finding that rent receipts were issued between 1980-1985, which is also reflected in the current RegisterII.

¶19

It is the specific case of the respondents that the return filed by the erstwhile Jamindar Raja Ramgarh after abolition of Jamindari, is not available with them. Respondents are the custodian of the returns which were filed by the intermediaries under the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶20

Illustration (g) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act provides that;

¶21

“The Court may presume-

¶22

That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it”

¶23

Being the custodian of the return filed by the intermediaries after abolition of Jamindari and failure on the part of the respondents to either admit or deny the fact that erstwhile Jamindar namely Raja, Ramgarh had settled the Gairmajarua Malik land in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner, would lead to an adverse inference against the respondents.

¶24

From perusal of the order dated 22.07.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh in Suspicious Case No. 01/2011-2012, it transpires that Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has cancelled the Jamabandi of the petitioner on the ground that rent receipts produced by the petitioner appears to be suspicious. He had not come to a specific conclusion that the rent receipts produced by the petitioner before him were forged and fabricated.

¶25

Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of this court dated 05.11.2020 passed in L.P.A No. 786/2018 in the case of The State of Jharkhand and others versus Izhar Hussain , where Division Bench of this Court has held that:

¶26

“It is further settled position of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be annulled. Herein it is admitted fact that Jamabandi can be created under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. We have gone across the provisions thereof, as contained in the Act, 1973 and have found that no provision confers upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi.

¶27

The question would be that in absence of any power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer of this question would be in negative as statute confers power upon the authority and the authority can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon it under the statutory power and if any decision is taken in absence of any

¶28

¶29

provision the same would be said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be without jurisdiction.

¶30

It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533.”

¶31

It transpires from the revenue records available with the respondents that Jamabandi of the petitioner was at least opened in the year 1980, so it is apparent that the petitioner has long standing Jamabandi in her name with regard to the land in question.

¶32

In view of the decision passed by this court in the case of The State of Jharkhand and others (Supra), Jamabandi of the petitioner cannot be cancelled by Respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh. The only option available with the respondents is to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest over the aforesaid land.

¶33

Accordingly, order dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 3) in Suspicious Case No. 01/2011-12, so affirmed by the order dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 2) in Miscellaneous Appeal Case No. 10/2014, is set aside.

¶34

This writ application is allowed.

¶35

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶36

Ranjeet/

Most Fatima Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretry And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most Fatima Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretry 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

Dubai Mardi Vs State of Jharkhand

Ajay Singh Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birsa Munda And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Tahir Qazi Alias Md Tahir Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand