BABU RAM MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.6.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. M.R.N.13 of 1996.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioners had purchased the land from one Bhaiya Mathili Sharan. The land originally belonged to one Sadashiv Lal. Sadashiv Lal had transferred the land in question to one Ganga Prasad way back in the year 1906. The Cadestral Survey Khewat No.2 was recorded in the name of Ganga Prasad and others. Ganga Prasad and others settled the said lands to different persons by virtue of registered documents. The settlees were recorded as Mukrirdars in respect of C.S. Khewet Nos.3/1 to 3/5 and Khewet No.3/6. The Mukrirdars, through whom the Opposite Parties claimed the land, were required to pay rent to the superior landlord Ganga Prasad and others. As the Mukrirdars defaulted in paying rent to the superior landlord, two Rent Suit were filed in the year 1916-17. Both the suits were decreed. Thereafter, Execution Case No.216 and 161 of 1919 was levied by the superior landlords to execute the rent decrees. In the said Execution Case, the entire interest of Mukarari Khewat was taken back by the superior landlord-Ganga prasad and others. There was amicable partition among the family members of Ganga Prasad and others. A Title Suit was filed in the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh being Title Suit No.106 of 1972. In the said Title Suit, land of Khata No.13 Plot No.1022 in respect of 2 acres along with other lands were allotted to Bhaiya Maithili Sharan. After some time, Bhaiya Maithili Sharan sold the suit land to Nazo Mahto and others. The petitioners are purchasers from Bhaiya Maithili Sharan. They have been in peaceful possession of the land in question. In the year 1995, the respondents filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari, Gola, Hazaribagh for issuing rent receipts in respect of the land in question in their favour. The petitioners' names were running in the Revenue Record since long on the basis of their purchase. Suddenly by order dated 23.1.1995, the Anchal Adhikari, even without issuing any notice or without hearing the petitioners, deleted the names of the petitioners from Revenue Record and directed to issue rent receipts in the name of the respondents. The petitioners preferred appeal against the order of the Anchal Adhikari before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh. The appellate Court issued notice to the respondents and called for the Lower Court Records. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers and on the basis of their purchase, Jamabandi was opened in their names and the petitioners were in cultivating possession. He further held that the Anchal Adhikari had acted illegally in setting aside the Jamabandi running in the names of the petitioners since long, even without issuing any notice to the affected persons or without publishing any general notice. Learned D.C.L.R. set aside the order and allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the respondents filed Misc. Case No.M.R.N. 13 of 1996. The Additional Collector vide order dated 10.6.2004 set aside the order of the L.R.D.C. The Addl. Collector has not considered the relevant facts and the law and decided the revision only on the ground that the D.C.L.R. had no power to hear revenue appeal under section 215 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was nobody's case that the appeal before the L.R.D.C. was filed under Section 215 of the C.N.T. Act. Section 215 of the C.N.T. Act provides for an appeal from the order of the Deputy Collector passed in suits tried by him.