Ajit Singh Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration Land Reforms

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2704 of 2023

Ajit Singh Sardar, aged about 55 years, C/o-Rameshwar Singh Sardar, resident of Village-Purisili, Panchayat Tamulia, P.O. – Kapali, P.S. – Chandil, District – Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand – 814152 ...... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Revenue Registration Land Reforms, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, 1^st Floor, Department of Finance, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004.

¶5

The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Chandil, District Seriakela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

¶6

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, P.O. & P.S.-Chandil, District-Seriakela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

¶7

Circle Officer, Chandil, P.O. & P.S.-Chandil, District-Seriakela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

¶8

Ratni Wala Singh, Mukhiya Chandil, Village/PanchayatTamuliya, P.O. & P.S.-Chandil, District-Seriakela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

¶9

Moina Devi, W/o – Late Sarveshwar Sardar, R/o- Village Barudih.

¶10

Vinita Devi, W/o- Tonu Singh, R/o-Village Kamargoda Kapali. 8. Shankar Devi @ Shankri Devi, W/o-Dasrath Singh, R/oGobarghusi Patamda.

¶11

Manju Devi, W/o- Sushen Singh, R/o-Village betakocha.

¶12

Punoti Singh, W/o- Doka Singh, R/o- Village Chilgu.

¶13

Ratan Singh Sardar, S/o- Late Pogro Singh Sardar.

¶14

Parwati Devi, W/o Late Baju Singh

¶15

12A. Sunita Singh Sardar, W/o Late Baju Singh Both R/o Village Purisilli, Panchayat- Tamulia, P.O. Kapali, P.S. Chandil, District- Seraikela Kharsawan.

¶16

Abhinash Singh Sardar,

¶17

13A. Raju Singh Sardar,

¶18

13B. Ranjit Singh Sardar,

¶19

Soluchana Devi, W/o Late Jiten Singh All resident of Village Purisilli, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, DistrictSeriakela Kharsawan. ..... Respondents

¶20

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶21

For the Petitioner	--------- : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Amritansh Vats, Advocate Amartya Choubey, Advocate Ashish Choudhary, Advocate Arpan Manjash Ekka, Advocate
For the Resp.-State	: Mr.	Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III
For the Resp. Nos. 6 to 10	: Mr. Mr. ---------	Amit Kumar, Advocate Ajay Kumar Advocate

¶22

07/Dated:-07.03.2025

¶23

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:

¶24

“A. For quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.04.2023 as contained in letter no 64 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (herein after referred as LRDC for ready reference), Chandil ( Annexure-6 ) in Mutation Appeal Case No 146/2022-23, insofar as the same is without jurisdiction and in the teeth of the principles of natural justice as neither any notice of hearing has been issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity has been afforded to him before passing of the order impugned.

¶25

B. For quashing and setting aside the correction order/rent receipt dated 19.04.2023 ( Annexure-8 ) issued by the Circle Officer, Chandil in favour of the Private Respondent No 6 to 10 insofar as the same has been issued on account of erroneous consideration and that took over a portion of land belonging to the petitioner as has conclusively been agreed upon/decided by the villagers in Gram Sabha dated 12.02.2023.”

¶26

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner is the son of one of the shareholders, Late Rameshwar Singh Sardar and is the grandson of the original raiyat Late Gambhir Sah alias Gambhir Singh Sardar, a fact apparent from the genealogy table authenticated by the Mukhiya Tamuliya, Ward Member, Ward No.1 and the Gram Pradhan Pudisili. Being the grandson of the original Raiyat and being in peaceful possession of the land in question, the petitioner made an application under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) to the Circle Officer, Chandil for mutation of the land in question.

¶27

Pursuant to the said application by the petitioner, a mutation case being Mutation Case No. 807R27/2022-23 was registered before the Circle Officer, Chandil, who on the basis of a report submitted by Halka Karamchari, rejected the prayer of mutation made by the petitioner vide its order dated 23.12.2022.

¶28

Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Circle Officer, Chandil in Mutation Case No. 807R27/2022-23 preferred by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Reforms

¶29

2

¶30

Deputy Collector (hereinafter referred as LRDC for ready reference) which was registered as Mutation Appeal Case No. 146 of 2022-23 and after hearing the petitioner and considering the documents submitted by him in support of his claim and in the light of the fact that the petitioner is grandson of the original khatiyani raiyat Gambhir Sah alias Gambhir Singh Sardar and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been enjoying peaceful possession of the land in question without any objection or hindrance, the LRDC vide its order dated 03.02.2023 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the Circle Officer, Chandil to ensure that the mutation is transferred in favour of the petitioner and rent is collected after issuing a correction slip.

¶31

3. Thereafter, subsequent to the aforementioned order dated 03.02.2022, upon an application by the petitioner, a Gram Sabha was called in the concerned village on 12.02.2023 and upon discussion and in the presence of the members of the Gram Sabha i.e., the Mukhiya Tamuliya, Ward member of Ward No.1, Tamuliya and Gram Pradhan, Pudisilli, it was decided that the total land having area 8.63 Acres situated at Khata no. 33 is registered in the name of the ancestor of the petitioner, i.e., Late Gambhir Sah. The minutes of the gram sabha was also prepared wherein it was clearly indicated that the said land is in the peaceful possession of the heirs of said Late Gambhir Sah including the petitioner.

¶32

4. However, a suo moto decision was taken by the LRDC without issuance of any notice to the petitioner or providing any opportunity of hearing to him, by passing an order as contained in letter No. 64 dated 08.04.2023 whereby he reviewed its earlier order dated 03.02.2023 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No. 146 of 2022-23; whereby he initially directed the Circle Officer, Chandil to ensure that the mutation is transferred in favour of the petitioner and rent is collected after issuing a correction slip; was cancelled.

¶33

3

¶34

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 3^rd respondent has reviewed his own order, though under the Act, there is no power of review by the 3^rd respondent. On the contrary, as per Section 16 of the Act, the aggrieved party can file a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶35

He further contended that the mutation in favour of the private respondents was done immediately after the 3^rd respondent had reviewed its own order without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He contended that at the first round, when the Circle Officer - 4^th respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation and the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the 3^rd respondent and thereafter, a Gram Sabha was also called and the minutes of Gram Sabha clearly indicated that the said land was in peaceful possession of the legal heirs of late Gambhir Sah including the petitioner. However, at that time the 4^th respondent was sitting tight over the matter even after a specific direction passed by the 3^rd respondent to do the needful after verification, but surprisingly, in the second round, when the 3^rd respondent suo moto reviewed its own order, then the 4^th respondent without issuing any show cause and ignoring the findings of the Gram Sabha, issued a correction slip in the name of private respondents i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 10, which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶36

He lastly submits that even otherwise, the LRDC i.e., the 3^rd respondent, has no power of review and at best the private respondents could have filed a revision against the appellate order which was passed in the first round of litigation, before the Deputy Commissioner; as such, the impugned orders dated 08.04.2023 (Annexure-6) and 19.04.2023 (Annexure-8) may be quashed and set aside.

¶37

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, after arguing at length, finally accepted that the LRDC has no power of review; as such, the case may be disposed of; however, a liberty may be given

¶38

4

¶39

to the private respondents to take an appropriate step because the petitioners herein have committed fraud in getting the order.

¶40

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, there is no quarrel on the issue that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, has no power of review and as per Section 16 of the Act, the aggrieved party can file a revision before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶41

In the instant case, it is apparent that when an application was filed by the petitioners under Section 14 of the Act to the Circle Officer for mutation, the Circle Officer–4^th Respondent has rejected the prayer of mutation made by the petitioners vide its order dated 23.12.2022. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the 3^rd Respondent-LRDC, which was registered as Mutation Appeal Case No.146 of 2022-2023 and after hearing the parties, the 3^rd respondent vide its order dated 03.02.2023, allowed the appeal and directed the 4^th respondent to ensure that mutation is carried out in the name of the petitioner and start issuing rent receipts.

¶42

It is further evident that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 03.02.2023 upon an application of the petitioner in the 2^nd round, a Gram Sabha was called in the concerned village and in presence of the members of the Gram Sabha, the Mukhiya, Ward Member and Gram Pradhan, decided that the total land having 8.63 Acres situated at Khata No.33 is registered in the name of ancestor of the petitioner i.e., late Gambhir Sah. The minutes of the Gram Sabha clearly indicates that the said land was in the peaceful possession of the heirs of the said late Gambhir Sah including the petitioner, but for the reasons best known to the 4^th respondent, he sat over the matter even after specific direction by the 3^rd respondent and interestingly when the 3^rd respondent reviewed its own order suo moto , the 4^th respondent immediately passed an order of mutation in favour of the private respondents.

¶43

5

¶44

8. At the cost of repetition as held hereinabove, the LRDC has no power of review under the Act. It is settled principle of law that the Review jurisdiction is a creation of statute which is not present in the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. As such the order 08.04.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by the 3^rd Respondent is set aside being wholly without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of Mutation dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure8) passed by the 4^th Respondent is also quashed and set aside.

¶45

Resultantly, the order passed by the 3^rd Respondent dated 03.02.2023 in Mutation Appeal Case No. 146 of 2022-23 remains in force. However, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to take recourse as enshrined under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.

¶46

9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed.

¶47

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶48

vikas/A . F . R

¶49

6

Ajit Singh Sardar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh Sardar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rang Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Vs State Bank of India Represented through Its Zonal Manager

Raj Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Somra Rahariya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Azad Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Department of Urban Development and Housing

Babita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand