Partly allowed

Sabitri Devi Alias Shabu Devi v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2024WPC/401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner whose compensation claim was rejected because her land was recorded as gairmazurwa, and whose long-standing jamabandi was cancelled under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, sought relief through two writ petitions. Court found the old survey entry non-determinative, quashed both orders and remitted compensation determination to the District Land Acquisition Officer.

What did the court decide?

Both impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro to determine compensation quantum and benefits within four months.

Sabitri Devi Alias Shabu Devi Vs State of Jharkhand… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

----

¶3

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021

¶4

----

¶5

Sabitri Devi @ Shabu Devi, wife of Amuly Mishra, aged about 65 years, resident of Village Tantri (North Tantri) PO Tantri, PS Jaridih, DistrictBokaro .... Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

2.Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

3.Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

¶10

4.Additional Collector, Bokaro

¶11

5.District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro

¶12

6.Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro

¶13

7.Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Chas, Bokaro

¶14

.... Respondents

¶15

With

¶16

W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶17

----

¶18

Sabitri Devi @ Shabu Devi, wife of Amuly Mishra, aged about 70 years, resident of Village Tanti (North Tantri) PO Tantri, PS Jaridih, DistrictBokaro, through its power of attorney holder Sri Dhrub Mishra, son of Amuly Mishra, aged about 53 years, resident of Village Tantri (North Tantri) PO Tantri, PS Jaridih, District Bokaro .... Petitioner

¶19

-- Versus --

¶20

1.The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶21

2.Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh

¶22

3.Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

¶23

4.Additional Collector, Bokaro

¶24

5.Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro

¶25

.... Respondents

¶26

¶27

-1- W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶28

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶29

--For the Petitioner (s) :- Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Oishi Das, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Kishore Kumra Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V Mr. Sushawan Bhawmik, AC to SC-V ----

¶30

22 /15.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶31

These two writ petitions are taken together as the facts in both these writ petitions are similar and in view of that, both these writ petitions are heard together with consent of the parties.

¶32

In W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021, the prayer has been made for quashing of the communication as contained in memo no.643 dated 27.11.2020 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation in lieu of her land which is sought to be used by the respondents for the purpose of widening and construction of Jaina More-Phusro -via- Bhandaridah approach Road, has been rejected, on the ground that the nature of the land is gairmazurwa and she has not submitted any document establishing her raiyati rights over the same.

¶33

The prayer in this writ petition has further been made that upon quashing of the said order /communication, a direction may be issued for suitable compensation in lieu of the said land.

¶34

In W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by respondent no.3 in

¶35

-2- W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶36

Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No.15 of 2023-24 instituted under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, whereby the concerned authority has been pleased to cancel the long standing jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner.

¶37

In this writ petition, the further prayer has been made for declaration of all consequential action, taken after the order dated 10.05.2023, to be illegal and void ab initio.

¶38

Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions, submits that Khata No.19 of Mouza Mango, Thana -Jaridih, Thana No.1 (presently Thana No.166) of Sub Registry Gola (now Chas), District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro) area 66 decimals was recorded as Kaiyami in the name of Khudu Mahli and his son one of them being Babu Lal Mahli in the survey settlement record of rights. He submits that Babu Lal Mahli son of Khudu Mahli by a Hukumnama dated 25.03.1932 took settlement of Gairmazurwa Khas land of the Ex-landlord comprised within khata no. 131/155 comprising of plot nos. 561, area of 94 decimals of Mouza Mango, Thana Jaridih, District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro). The said Babu Lal Mahli was put in possession over the aforesaid land confirmed by a Fard Amin Report and the ex-landlord realized salami and rent from him in token whereof rent receipts were issued. He further submits that Babu Lal Mahli also took settlement of Gairmazarua Khas Land comprised within Khata no. 131/92 comprising an area of 3.27 acres of Plot No. 561 of Thana Jaridih, Mouza Mango, District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro) by Hukumnama dated 25.05.1934. He was put in possession over the aforesaid khata confirmed by a Fard Amin Report and the ex-landlord realized salami and rent from him, in token whereof rent receipts were issued. He then

¶39

-3-

¶40

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶41

submits that upon vesting of the intermediary interest, Babu Lal Mahli was found in possession over the aforesaid khata no. 131/155 and 131/92 of Mouza Mango, Thana Jaridih, District Hazaribah (now Bokaro) and he was in possession of the khata no. 19 of the said Mouza which was his raiyati land. Babu Lal Mahli was recognized as raiyat by the State in respect of the aforesaid Khata No. 19, Khata No. 131/155 and Khata No. 131/92 upon vesting of the intermediary interest. He further submits that, said Babu Lal Mahli by registered deed no. 8653 dated 12.12.1961 sold and transferred his interest in the aforesaid Khata No. 19, Khata No. 131/155 and Khata No. 131/92 of Mouza Mango, Thana Jaridih, District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro) in favour of one Moti Mahli, son of Aklu Mahli after taking permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act vide Rent Case no. 139/1961-62 which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 14.10.1961. Said Moti Mahli after purchase by the aforesaid deed came in possession over the lands under Khata No. 19, Khata No. 131/155 and Khata No. 131/92 of Mouza Mango, Thana Jaridih, District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro). He submits that said Moti Mahli while in possession sold and transferred the aforesaid lands in favour of Triloki Mishir, son of Late Mohan Mishir by registered deed no. 6296 dated 09.07.1967 and put him in possession. The said Triloki Mishir while thus in possession sold and transferred 3.27 acres of khata no. 131/92, Plot Nos. 561/2427, 561/2428, 561/2429, 561/2430, 561/2431, 561/2433, 561/2434 and 561/2441 of Mouza Mango, District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro) to the petitioner for a valuable consideration vide registered deed no. 6297 dated 19.07.1967. He then submits that the petitioner came in possession over the aforesaid land purchased by her. The said Triloki Mishir by another registered deed no.6299 dated

¶42

-4- W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶43

19.07.1967 sold and transferred the land comprised within khata no. 131/155, plot no. 561/935 of Mouza Mango, Thana Jaridih, District Hazaribagh (now Bokaro) having an area of 94 decimals to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner came in possession of the aforesaid land and applied for mutation of her name in the revenue records. After due and proper enquiry, her name was mutated in the revenue records and she was assessed to fair and equitable rent. The petitioner paid the rent as has been assessed and in token whereof rent receipts were issued. The petitioner has paid up-to-date rent in respect of the aforesaid land purchased by her, as contained in Annexure -3 series to the writ petition. He submits that thereafter, the petitioner had constructed residential structures over a portion of the said land and is also using the other portion of the land for agricultural purposes. The petitioner has taken energy connection as well the L.P.G connection. He further submits that the Government of Jharkhand has decided for widening and construction of Jaina More-Phusro-via-Bhandaridah approach Road, and acquired certain raiyati lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). The State Government published notification under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 for acquisition of raiyati lands on or about February, 2019. He submits that though a portion of land of the petitioner comprised under khata no. 131/155 and 131/92 were included within the aforesaid project, yet no notification for acquisition of the aforesaid land under Act of 2013 was published by the State Government. He submits that the respondents have not yet demarcated the exact portion of the land of the petitioner under the aforesaid khatas. He submits that that the State Government was under the impression that since the nature of

¶44

-5-

¶45

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶46

the land has been recorded as Gairmazurwa Khas in the last survey settlement, the same is government land which is not required to be acquired completely ignoring the said lands having vested as raiyati land on operation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the State Government has also recognized the predecessor in title of the petitioner as well as the petitioner as raiyats/ owners under the Government. He submits that the State Government has already recognized the petitioner as raiyat as the petitioner is in possession of the said land for more than 30 years and as such the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

¶47

He further submits that the petitioner has represented before the District Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department on 30.12.2019 for acquiring the land of the petitioner which has been used for the purpose of project and the award in her name, as contained in Annexure-5/1 to the petition. He submits that when no action has been taken, the petitioner has submitted reminder on 25.11.2020. He further submits that thereafter the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro by memo no. 643 dated 27.11.2020 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry in presence of the petitioner has rejected her claim only on the ground that the nature of the land is gairmazurwa land and therefore no compensation is payable to her. He submits that without providing any opportunity, an observation was made in the impugned order that no document was provided by the petitioner, and in this background, he submits that the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer is without jurisdiction.

¶48

By way of assailing the impugned order he further submits

¶49

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶50

-6-

¶51

that in absence of providing any opportunity violating principles of natural justice, the order has been passed. He submits that the State Government has recognized the petitioner as raiyat as rent receipt was issued. He submits that in absence of demarcating the land in question of the petitioner, the construction work of widening of the said road has already been completed. He submits that the petitioner was in possession of the said land for more than 50 years and in spite of that, on the vague ground, the compensation in favour of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶52

He further submits that during pendency of the writ petition, W.P.(C) No.401 of 2021, the State Government has filed a petition under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which was decided by the order dated 10.05.2023 which is the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.6147 of 2023. He submits that once the jamabandi was opened in favour of the petitioner and it continued for such a long period, the invocation of said section under the said Act by the State Government was further belated one and as such, the said proceeding was also bad in law. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others v. Smt.

¶53

Kalpana Pandey, 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2179 , wherein at paragraph no.18 it is held as under:

¶54

“ 18. It has further been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71, especially in paragraph 2 thereof, as under:

¶55

“2. Although Mr Bhasme, learned counsel appearing for the appellant took a stand that under Section 63 of the Act aforesaid, there should not be any discrimination amongst the agriculturists with reference to the State to which such agriculturist belongs. But according to him even without going into that question the impugned order can be set aside

¶56

-7- W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶57

on the ground that suo motu power has not been exercised within a reasonable time. Section 84-C of the Act does not prescribe any time for initiation of the proceeding. But in view of the settled position by several judgments of this Court that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time-limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case the transfer took place as early as in the year 1972 and suo motu enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar in September 1973. If sale deeds are declared to be invalid the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable injury, because he has made investments after the aforesaid purchase. In this connection, on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on a judgment of Justice S.B. Majmudar (as he then was in the High Court of Gujarat) in State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah disposed of on 1-3-1990, where in connection with Section 84-C itself it was said that the power under the aforesaid section should be exercised within a reasonable time. This Court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs.

¶58

(Emphasis Supplied).”

¶59

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the fact of the present case is identical one and since the long jamabandi was created in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the said order is passed which is against the mandate of law. In view of that, the said order may kindly be quashed. He further submits that once the petitioner is in possession of the land in question since last more than 50 years and if the State is claiming the same, the State is required to file a civil suit and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of The State of Jharkhand v. Chanchala Devi in L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 along with

¶60

-8-

¶61

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶62

L.P.A. No.307 of 2009 and he refers to paragraph nos.9 and 10 of the said judgment, which are quoted below:

¶63

“ 9. It appears from the facts of the case that the presumption on the part of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land is not permissible in the eyes of law. If the State Government is 4 claiming the ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the original petitioners and which is in possession of the predecessor-in-title from 09.06.1942, the Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State of Jharkhand. They cannot drag the citizens to be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. Burden of proof that the State is owner of the property in question lies upon the State Government. The defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. There is vast difference between burden of proof for the plaintiff and for the defendant. The purchasers of the property by the registered sale deeds in the year 1992 from their predecessor-in-title Rang Nath Sahu, who is owner of the property from 09.06.1942, cannot be upset by a report of Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. Prima-facie, no fraud has been played by the purchasers of the property who are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Likewise, prima-facie, Rang Nath Sahu is the owner of the property, looking to the revenue entry from 1995-1956. Thus, more than 30 years old entries and documents cannot be upset by or cannot be brushed aside by one line report of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008 and we see no reason to take any other view to what is taken by the learned Single Judges in both the writ petitions.

¶64

10. Counsel for the State has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Labendra Chand Bothra reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 21 (SC). Looking to the facts of the present case, the ratio decidendi propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Remarkably, different facts of the present case are as under:-

¶65

(a) Ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo settled the land in favour of Rang Nath Sahu on 09.06.1942.

¶66

-9-

¶67

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶68

(b) After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the rent was assessed in the name of Rang Nath Sahu in case no. A-29/1955-1956 and also Jamabandi No. 194/624 was created in the name of Rang Nath Sahu.

¶69

(c) This Jamabandi/mutation entry continued for years together and decades together. Nothing was suppressed and nothing was exaggerated by Rang Nath Sahu. Mutation Entries were in the custody of the Revenue Officers. Everything has been accepted by the State for several years and several decades.

¶70

(d) Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008, who are the husband and wife have purchased small piece of land ad-measuring 20 decimals each from Rang Nath Sahu by registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and 07.07.1992.

¶71

(e) They applied for mutation entry and the application was treated as Mutation Case No. 183R 27/1993-1994 before the Circle Officer, Town, Anchal and it was allowed. Thus, mutation entries were carried out in the name of the purchasers and petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 as well as petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008 from 1993-1994.

¶72

(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.

¶73

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

¶74

(h) Thus, it appears that the State Government is relying upon one line report given by the Halka Karamchari that land in question is a government land. If this is the stand of the government, the State Government can file a Civil Suit so that the title of the property can be decided or the ownership of the property can be decided by the competent Trial Court. Ownership can always be decided by the civil courts. There is a presumption in favour of the holder of the

¶75

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶76

-10-

¶77

mutation entry, especially, when any mutation entry is much older in point of time.”

¶78

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that action of the respondent State of cancelling the long standing Jamabandi by way of invoking the said provision, is not tenable. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court has further considered section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in L.P.A. No.786 of 2018 in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others v. Izhar Hussain which was decided by the judgment dated 05.11.2020 and held that the applicability of provision of section 4(h) felt for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni v. State of Bihar and Others, 1990 (1) PLJR 170 wherein it has been laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of Jamabandi under the Sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part thereof vests in the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with jurisdiction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st January, 1946. In the said judgment, at internal page no.19, it was found by the Hon’ble Division Bench that the State Government has not produced any document pertaining to the notification issued under section 4 of Bihar Land Reforms Act. Identical is the situation in the present case. It was pointed out by Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that S.L.P was dismissed and in view of that the said order was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this background, he submits that the action of the said authorities is arbitrary and the petitioner is in possession of the land and merely because at one point of time if the land was gairmazuruwa khas it cannot be said that the nature of the land in due

¶79

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶80

-11-

¶81

course of time was not changed. He submits that there are transactions by way of several sale deeds and the petitioner is the third purchaser and as such, that rejection on this ground is not tenable. He further submits that the State Government has also come with notification of the Government of India with regard to Central Project in which it has been decided that the persons who are in possession of the land since last 30 years, can be said to be raiyat and they are entitled for compensation as contained in Annexure-1 to second supplementary affidavit. He further submits that on 08.07.2021 the Circle Officer has informed the Additional Collector, Bokaro that the nature of the land is gairmazuruwa khas and in Register-II it has been recorded in the name of the petitioner and it was also reported by the Circle Officer that there is construction by the petitioner and in some portion of the land the agricultural activities are carried out and the land in part at Jaina More-Phusro Road and that document is brought on record by way of filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondent State.

¶82

On this ground, he submits that both the orders are required to be interfered with by this Court. 14. Per contra, Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State has opposed the prayer on the ground that there are disputed question of facts involved in the writ petition and as such the writ petition itself is not maintainable. He submits that there is no document to suggest how settlement was changed in view of the registered deed and as such, that dispute can be only the subject matter of civil suit. He submits that the petitioner is required to file a civil suit even she is in possession. He draws the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit of the respondent State,

¶83

-12-

¶84

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶85

particularly paragraph no.9, and submits that the writ petition has been filed on the basis of unregistered power of attorney and in view of that also the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the transfer of the land by Moti Mahli to Triloki Mishir is against the provisions of section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act as the same restricts transfer of land by the members of scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes and backward classes to a person of general category. Triloki Mishir has not acquired title on the basis of sale deed no.6297 dated 19.07.1967. he submits that these are the disputed question of facts and law and as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed. He further draws the attention of the Court to the order passed by the respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) No.6147 of 2023 and submits that by a reasoned order the jamabandi of the petitioner has been cancelled and as such, there is no illegality and the writ petition may kindly be dismissed on the point of disputed question of facts.

¶86

Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State has relied in the case of Lekho Prasad @ Lekho Prasad Chouhan @ Lekho Beldar v. Stat of Jharkhand and Another [LP.A. No.525 of 2014 with L.P.A No.540 of 2014] as well as The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department versus Md. Zulfan Ansari [L.P.A No.318 of 2022 with analogous cases] decided by judgment dated 09.04.2024 and relying on the aforesaid two judgments, Mr. Singh, the learned State counsel submits that the disputed question of facts are there and that can be the subject matter of suit and that has been held in the aforesaid L.P.As by the Hon’ble Division Bench and as such, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶87

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶88

-13-

¶89

In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent State, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the land in question by way of sale deed no.6297 dated 19.07.1967. The sale deed was in favour of the petitioner in the year 1967 and thereafter she has constructed the house on the portion of the land and she was doing agricultural work. The jamabandi was also opened by the respondent State and rent receipt was also being paid by the petitioner. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State is accepted that originally the land was gairmazuruwa khas (parti), that cannot be accepted at this stage and that entry was cadastral survey over 100 years old with regard to nature of land is not entry for all times in future; it is entry with regard to existing state of affairs at that time. It does not preclude the change the nature of the land through a passage of time. It is not an entry which would hold good for all the times and to come and bind all parties and not subject to change either by settlement or user merely because in the cadastral survey the land is shown as gairmazuruwa and that cannot be a determinative factor of a matter in the year 2024 and it only shows the history.

¶90

It is further well settled that the said land being settled by the Government and it was also held judicially that such land can be settled. Further the determinative factor in the present case is validity of long standing Jamabandi was already created. This is not a case that one of the person has overnight turned up and some of the papers have been manufactured. The petitioner undisputedly has been in possession for over 50 years. The State has also accepted this aspect of the matter

¶91

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶92

-14-

¶93

in the counter affidavit that Jamabandi was created long back, but, stated that it was wrongly done and in absence of the order of any competent authority. It is further well settled that where there are such dispute which involve question of right, title and possession especially when long standing possession is not disputed then the only forum available to the respondent State for cancellation of Jamabandi is resort to civil court and not in summary proceeding or any revenue officer of the State. This aspect has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Izhar Hussain (L.P.A No.786 of 2018) as well as The State of Jharkhand v. Chanchala Devi in L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 along with L.P.A. No.307 of 2009(supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further the order of the Division Bench in L.P.A No.786 of 2018 has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, cancellation of Jamabandi after such a long period without moving to a competent court of civil jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eye of law. 18. So far as the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent State with regard to the power of attorney is concerned, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has not agitated right, title and interest of the said property, and the said power of attorney is only filed for the purpose of filing present writ petition and in view of that the registered power of attorney is not the mandate. With regard to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent State of not taking of permission under Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the Court finds that the averments are there in the writ petition that permission was given under section 46 of the Chotanagpur

¶94

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶95

-15-

¶96

Tenancy Act by the Deputy Commissioner under section 46 of the C.N.T. Act on 14.10.1961 itself (paragraph no.10). In the registered sale deed, which is brought on record by way of rejoinder, in which permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, is also disclosed. The further objection of the State with regard to non-permission, if any, with regard to Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is further not tenable as the land in question was already transferred in the year 1967 and no objection of any proceeding has been brought against the said permission of transaction and for cancellation on the ground of not taking permission under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the limitation has been provided for 12 years and with regard to possession in the case arising out of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the limitation is prescribed for 30 years. The judgment relied by Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent State with regard to disputed question of fact is not in dispute. It is well settled that if disputes are there and there are no clinching evidence to suggest about the right, the writ petition cannot be subject matter and that can be a subject matter of civil court only and the facts of those cases on which the learned counsel for the respondent State has relied that were on different footing and as such, those judgments are not helping the respondent State.

¶97

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law, and as such, the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, which is subject matter in W.P.(C) No.401 of 2021 and the order passed by the respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) No.6147 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 are,

¶98

-16-

¶99

W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶100

hereby, quashed.

¶101

In light of notification of the Government of Jharkhand contained in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit vide letter no.334 dated 14.05.2019 issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby all the Deputy Commissioner have been informed that if any land is being requisitioned for any project of public undertaking under the Central Government the related area is to be inspected by a committee consisting of four members and if during special survey and open inspection if it is found that a raiyat is being in occupation of gairmazurwa khas / government land for more than 30 years before the date of deposition and the Jamabandi is also running in his name for more than 30 years, appropriate action will be taken to pay compensation equivalent to a general raiyat and again by letter no.423 dated 12.02.2015 the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand clarified the said aspects to all the Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners that letter no.334 dated 14.05.2009 could be made applicable to only those persons who are found in cultivation, possession of gairmazuruwa khas/ government land for more than 30 years as also the Jamabandi is also running in their name in Register-II for more than 30 years and the instructions given in the said letter will not be applicable to the other matters . These two letters have been considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Niwaran Marandi and

¶102

Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar. 595 and that aspect has been considered in the case of ‘ Niwaran Marandi’ (supra) , however, that matter was with regard to Central Project and if such stand is taken by the Government of Jharkhand for

¶103

-17- W.P. (C) No.401 of 2021 with W.P. (C) No.6147 of 2023

¶104

Central Project, why the said provision will not apply in the case of State Project and the answer is simply ‘no’ in view of the fact that both the projects either under the Central Government or the State Government are for the development and for widening of the road. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 50 years and jamabandi is also running in her name, the petitioner will be entitled for compensation.

¶105

In view of above finding, the matter is remitted back to the District Land Acquisition Officer Officer, Bokaro to determine the quantum of compensation and other benefits as has been done in the case of other raiyats whose land was also being acquired for the said

¶106

project.

¶107

The entire exercise with regard to compensation shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order.

¶108