Allowed

Jagmohan Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2024WPC/1763/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Land Reforms Deputy Collector's order directing cancellation of his ancestor's Jamabandi and creation of a fresh one. The court held no provision of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 empowers the State to cancel a Jamabandi, so revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title. The impugned order was quashed and the writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.11.2016 passed by LRDC, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2014-15 quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed.

Jagmohan Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1763 of 2017

¶2

Jagmohan Prasad, son of Late Bhola Mahto, resident of Village –Rola, P.O. –Rola, P.S. –Hazaribagh (Mufassil), District –Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. –Hazaribagh, P.S. –Sadar, District -Hazaribagh.

¶5

Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, P.O. –Hazaribagh, P.S. –Sadar, District -Hazaribagh.

¶6

Circle Officer, Sadar Circle, Hazaribagh, P.O. –Hazaribagh, P.S. – Sadar, District –Hazaribagh.

¶7

Taffazul Hussain, son of Late Ramjan Mian, resident of village – Amnari, P.O. –Silwar, P.S. –Sadar (Mufassil), District –Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. A.K. Geasen, AC to AAG-IA

¶12

By the Court:-

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

Though notice has validly been served upon the respondent no.4, yet no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.4 in-spite of repeated calls.

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 08.11.2016, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar,

¶16

W.P. (C) No.1763 of 2017

¶17

¶18

Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2014-15 whereby and where under the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Hazaribagh has directed the Circle Officer, Sadar Circle, Hazaribagh to open a Jamabandi in the name of Khatiyani Raiyat by cancelling illegally running Jamabandi and further to take action for issuance of rent receipt in favour of Khatiyani Raiyat .

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Izhar Hussain, in LPA No. 786 of 2018 and other allied cases wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has reiterated the settled principle of law in page no.22 of the said Judgment which reads as under:-

¶20

“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 confer upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi.”

¶21

And submits that it being a settled principle of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be annulled. The L.R.D.C. has exceeded its jurisdiction by annulling the Jamabandi on the basis of adjudication of title. It is further submitted that the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8108 of 2021 filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the said Judgment of the Division Bench in

¶22

W.P. (C) No.1763 of 2017

¶23

¶24

LPA No. 786 of 2018 and other allied cases has been dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2021.

¶25

Relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Koderma Gaushala Samittee Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., para -22 of which reads as under:-

¶26

“It is a settled principle of law that the entries made in the revenue records are for fiscal purpose only and such entries neither create any title nor extinguishes any title. It is also a settled principle of law that revenue officers cannot adjudicate title of the parties.”

¶27

It is submitted that this Bench has also reiterated the settled principle of law that revenue officers cannot adjudicate title of the parties and the sole basis for which the annulment of the Jamabandi created in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner is adjudication of title; therefore, the said order annulling the Jamabandi, is not sustainable in law.

¶28

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondent no.4 was very much aware about this writ petition and even filed W.P.(C) No. 3558 of 2021 which was tagged with this writ petition but today it has been separated as the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 3558 of 2021 prayed for time; but the respondent no.4 has deliberately chosen not to appear in this writ petition and the respondent no.4 also know pretty well that the impugned order passed by the LRDC, Hazaribagh is not

¶29

W.P. (C) No.1763 of 2017

¶30

¶31

sustainable in law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this writ petition be allowed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the State fairly submits that the LRDC has no power to annul the Jamabandi as the same can be only done by competent Civil Court.

¶33

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the settled principle of law that there is no provision in the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 conferring any authority on the State to cancel Jamabandi certainly the respondent no.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing annulment of the Jamabandi created in the name of the ancestor of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 08.11.2016, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2014-15, suffering from gross illegality is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.11.2016, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2014-15 is quashed and set aside.

¶35

In the result, this writ petition is allowed.

¶36

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶37

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18^th June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶38

W.P. (C) No.1763 of 2017

¶39

Jagmohan Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagmohan Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner 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

Pankaj Chatterjee Alias Prabodh Alias Pankaj Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Lal Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amulya Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashif Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Principal Secretary Urban Development And Ors.

Asif Iqbal Siddique Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Kiran Singh Alias Kiran Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand