Rajiv Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 2102 of 2022

¶3

Rajiv Poddar, Aged about 64 years, son of Late Ishwari Prasad Poddar,

¶4

Pradip Poddar, Aged about 60 years, son of Late Ishwari Prasad Poddar, Both resident of Village Kunda, P.S. Deoghar and P.O Deoghar & District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa and P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.

¶7

Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, through Its Principal Secretary having its office at Project building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar P.O. Deoghar P.S. Deoghar DistrictDeoghar, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Deoghar P.O. Deoghar P.S. Deoghar District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶10

The Circle Officer, Deoghar P.O. Deoghar P.S. Deoghar District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶11

Smt. Kavita Dutta, Widow of Late Sudhin Dutta, aged about 58 Year, Resident of Makardah, Choudhary para, Domjur, Howrah, West Bengal.

¶12

Harivansh Yadav, son of Late Chamaru Yadav residing at Rampur, P.O. Malhara, P.S. Mohanpur, Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶13

Bhola Ram Yadav, son of Late Dhari Ram Yadav, residing at 12/1A, Nanda Mullick Lane, P.O. Beadon Street, P.S. Girish Park, Kolkata, West Bengal. ... … Respondents

¶14

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

--------For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the State: Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-III For Respt. No. 6: Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For Respt. No. 7: Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate

¶16

¶17

09/Dated: 05.09.2024

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶20

“(i) For quashing the order dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure-14) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Respondent no. 3) in Mutation Revision Case No. 22/2017-18 whereby and where under the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar has been dismissed and direction has been issued to the Circle Officer, Deoghar to register the names of legal heirs of Jamabandi raiyat Mahamaya Dasi and further direction has been issued to the Circle Officer, Deoghar, for lodging an First Information Report against the petitioner no. 1.

¶21

And

¶22

(ii) For quashing the order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-9) passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar (Respondent no.4) in Mutation Appeal case No. 02/2015-16, whereby and where-under inter alia the order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar in Mutation Case No. 1298/2012-13 in relation to the mutation of property situated at Mauza- Kunda, Thana No. 409,

¶23

Jamaband No. 47/32, P.S./Sub Registry/Taluk Deoghar, District Santhal Pargana in Dag No. 303 (New Dag No. 588, 589 and 590) total measuring 3 bigha, 1 katha and 8 Dhur (hereinafter referred to as the "said property) in the name of the petitioners has been set aside on the application filed by the Respondent No. 6 through Respondent No. 7, by exceeding its jurisdiction and deciding the Title.”

¶24

Description of the land in question is as follows:

¶25

“Mouza Kunda, Thana No. 409, Jamabandi No. 47/32, P.S./Sub Registry/Taluk Deoghar, District Santhal Pargana in Dag No. 303 (New Dag No. 588, 589 and 590) total measuring 3 bigha, 1 katha and 8 Dhur”

¶26

From the arguments and the pleadings of the parties, the factual matrix which emerges is given hereinbelow:

¶27

(i) It appears that Nrisingh Charan Nandi acquired the property in question by virtue of Mortgage Suit No. 89/1897 affirmed by High Court of Calcutta.

¶28

(ii) Dinbandhu Nandi acquired the land vide surrender deed dated 26.04.1909.

¶29

(iii) Dinbandhu Nandi, the ex-jamindar transferred the said property being Dag no.303 to Annada Prasad Dutt in 1913.

¶30

(iv) Annada Prasad Dutt vide sale deed no. 46 dated 03.02.1927 transferred the land to his wife, namely Mahamaya Dasi.

¶31

(v) Mahamaya Dasi transferred the said land measuring 4.75 acres and Jamabandi no. 47/32 with structures to Kedar Nath Poddar vide registered sale deed no. 4137 dated 21.11.1934, which was witnessed as well as identified by the sons of Mahamaya Dasi.

¶32

(vi) Annada Prasad Dutt was declared insolvent in case no. 171185/1928 by the learned court of Additional District Judge, Howrah, West Bengal and the said Plot no. 303 area measuring 4.75 acres and Jamabandi no. 47/32 was vested in the Receiver, namely Mr. Birendra Nath Rai, appointed by the said learned Court and the same was sold by the learned Receiver through Auction sale to brother of Kedar Nath Poddar, namely Radha Kishan Gupta @ Poddar vide sale deed No. 200 dated 23.05.1936.

¶33

(vii) Deed of Partition dated 24.11.1939 executed amongst three brothers, namely Kedar Nath Poddar, Radha Kishan Poddar and Ghanshyam Das Poddar.

¶34

(viii) Names of Kedar Nath and Ghanshyam Das continued in the tenants ledger of State and rents are being paid from time to time.

¶35

(ix) Ghanshyam Das Poddar died leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 13.04.1981. Later on, Probate of Will was granted by the High Court at Calcutta in PLA No. 10 of 1986.

¶36

2 W.P. (C) No. 2102 of 2022

¶37

(x) Petitioners constituted a partnership firm in capacity of Director incorporated “Subhasree Farms Private Limited” on 27.12.1988 as Part IX Company under the name and style of “Kini Farms Private Limited”.

¶38

(xi) The name of company was changed to “Shanta Subhasree Farms Private Limited” and a Fresh Certificate of Incorporation was issued on 15.09.2005 by Registrar of Companies which has again changed to “Subhshree Farms Private Limited”.

¶39

(xii) Petitioners applied before the Circle Officer, Deoghar for mutation of the property which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1298/2012-13 and consequently vide order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar, the aforesaid land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioners.

¶40

(xiii) “Shanta Subhasree Farms Private Limited” made an application before the Circle Officer, Deoghar on 29.08.2013 for mutation of the property in question which was registered as Mutation Case No. 642/2013-14.

¶41

(xiv) The Circle Officer, Deoghar vide order dated 19.09.2013 allowed the mutation of the aforesaid land in question in favour of “Shanta SubhaShri Farms Private Limited” and accordingly, correction slip has been issued.

¶42

(xv) Respondent No. 6 through Respondent No. 7 challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2013 in an appeal before Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar in Mutation Appeal No. 02/2015-16.

¶43

(xvi) The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar vide order dated 19.02.2018 has been pleased to set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar passed in Mutation Case No. 1298/201213.

¶44

(xvii) Power of Attorney dated 02.07.2016 has been executed by Respondent No.6 in favour of Harivansh Yadav being Respondent No. 7 and Bhola Ram Yadav being Respondent No. 8, in relation to a part of the said property to act jointly.

¶45

(xviii) The order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Misc. Certificate No. 132/2017 states that the Jamabandi of the land in issue is running in the name of Kedar Nath Poddar in Register-ll and such position has never been challenged in any court of competent civil jurisdiction.

¶46

(xix) Petitioners through the RTI application received information by reply dated 10.09.2018 from the office of Circle Officer, Deoghar

¶47

3 W.P. (C) No. 2102 of 2022

¶48

that pursuant to Mutation Case No. 39/1957-58 as alleged, the name of Sukumar Dutta, a purported legal heir of Mahamaya Dasi has neither been recorded in Register-II nor they have the possession over the said land in question.

¶49

(xx) Mutation Revision Case No. 22/2017-18 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide order dated 21.02.2022. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar further directed the Circle Officer, Deoghar, to register the names of legal heirs of Jamabandi raiyat Mahamaya Dasi and to lodge a First Information Report against petitioner No.1.

¶50

Before the present Court, it appears that a mutation proceeding has been initiated by the present petitioners which has been numbered as Mutation Case No. 1298/2012-13 which has been allowed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 23.03.2013. It further appears that the said mutation order has been challenged by the private respondents by filing Appeal which has been numbered as Mutation Appeal No. 02/2015-16 which has been allowed, i.e., the order has been passed against the present petitioners. It further appears that a revision has been filed by the present petitioners which has been numbered as Mutation Revision Case No. 22/2017-18 which has been dismissed confirming the order of the appellate court vide order dated 21.02.2022. The appellate order and the revisional order have been impugned by the present petitioners in the present writ petition.

¶51

It appears that the land in question is a Raiyati land. The travelling of the land till Mahamaya Dasi (Mahamaya Bala Dasi) is not in dispute, but the dispute is thereafter. The private respondents are claiming right, title and interest over the property on the strength of inheritance. The present petitioners are claiming title on the strength of a sale deed executed on 21.11.1934 by Mahamaya Dasi. It appears that the said Mahamaya Dasi has died prior to 1940. It further appears that there is a parallel mutation in the name of the petitioners as well as private respondents. Thus, the title has been disputed by the private respondents and that has been accepted by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority. The reason for acceptance of the claim of the private respondents and negating the sale deed executed in the year 1934 is the date of death of the executor of the sale deed, i.e. late Mahamaya Dasi. Deciding the title and disputing the sale deed is not the function of a revenue authority. It can be settled only and only by the civil court.

¶52

In that view of the matter, it is crystal clear that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar and revisional authority dated 21.02.2022 passed by

¶53

4 W.P. (C) No. 2102 of 2022

¶54

VK Uploaded

¶55

the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, are wholly without jurisdiction as in those orders, title has been decided and the sale deed has been doubted and negated. Accordingly, both the orders are hereby, quashed and set aside. However, the parties are at liberty to work out their further remedy in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶56

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶57

5 W.P. (C) No. 2102 of 2022

Rajiv Poddar v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Poddar v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bidyanand Roy And Anr. Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Bimal Chandra Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Motilal Panda Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Sanjay Kapri Alias Sanjay Kumar Kapri Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wahid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Naraian Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.