Rekha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1662 of 2021 with

I.A. No.3529 of 2021

Rekha Devi, aged about 35 years, wife of Sri Angadh Kumar, resident of Village-Karamdih, P.O. & P.S. Manjhiaon, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). ........... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, having its office at Collectorate Building, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. & District-Garhwa.

¶7

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa.

¶8

Smt. Nirmala Devi, wife of Sri Ramchandar Ram, resident of Village-Chandan, P.O.-Harigaon, P.S. Manjhiaon, DistrictGarhwa (Jharkhand).

¶9

Smt. Anita Devi, wife of Sri Surendar Prajapati, resident of Village-Mudma Khurd, P.O.-Mudma Kala, P.S. Pandu, DistrictPalamau. .......... Respondents.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashank Saurav, A.C. to G.P.-III For the Res. No.3 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No.10 Date: 19.03.2025

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26^th December, 2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in L.C. Case No.12 of 2013-14 contending that the said order was passed on wrong finding of fact and law. The petitioner has also made other related prayers.

¶13

An interlocutory application being I.A. No.3529 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking impleadment of Vinita Devi wife of Ajay Kumar resident of village-Chandan, P.O.-Harigaon, P.S.-Manjhiaon, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) and Ajay Kumar son of Ramchandra Ram resident of village-

¶14

Chandan, P.O.-Harigaon, P.S.-Manjhiaon, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) as respondents in the present writ petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the L.C. Case No.12 of 2013-14 which was filed by the petitioner against the respondent nos.3 and 4 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short “the Act, 1961”) for the land appertaining to Khata No.50, Plot No.247 measuring an area of 0.18 ¾ acre of Village Karamdih, P.S. + Circle-Manjhiaon, District-Garhwa, the respondent no.4 executed Sale Deed No.653/638 dated 15^th April, 2017 with respect to the land in favour of Vinita Devi and Ajay Kumar (daughter-in-law and son of the respondent no.3) in equal shares. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner may be permitted to implead them as respondents in the present writ petition.

¶16

Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 submits that the land in question has been returned by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.4 in view of the decree dated 12^th March, 2016 passed in favour of the respondent no.4 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-VIII, Garhwa in Title Suit No.20 of 2015. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26^th December, 2020 passed in L.C. Case No.12 of 2013-14 under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 has now become infructuous.

¶17

2

¶18

W.P.(C) No.1662 of 2021

¶19

As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact regarding filing of the Title Suit No.20 of 2015 by the respondent no.4 and disposal of the same was not disclosed by her in L.C. Case No.12 of 2013-14. In fact, the respondent nos.3 and 4 deliberately suppressed the said fact from the petitioner to frustrate her cause. Moreover, after return of the land to the respondent no.4, she has mischievously sold the land to Vinita Devi and Ajay Kumar.

¶20

Be that as it may. Since the land in question has already been returned by the respondent no.3 to the original raiyat i.e., respondent no.4 in view of the decree dated 12^th March, 2016 passed in favour of the respondent no.4 by the Civil Judge(Junior Division)-VIII, Garhwa, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated order dated 26^th December, 2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in L.C. Case No.12 of 2013-14 has become infructuous. So far as the fact regarding subsequent sale of the land by the respondent no.4 in favour of Vinita Devi and Ajay Kumar is concerned, who at present have the right and title over the said land, the petitioner has a fresh cause of action against them to be taken as permissible under law.

¶21