KRISHNA LAL RUNGTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice as contained in memo No. 620 dtd. 19/5/2017 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 at the instance of the private respondent No.5 whereby the notice has been issued to the petitioner fixing the date of measurement of the land on 20/5/2017, which is the subject matter of Original Suit No. 200 of 2017. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice as contained in memo No. 974 dtd. 17/8/2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) again issued by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner informing fixation of the date of measurement of the suit land on 24/8/2017 and deputing three Anchal Amins for the said purpose. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere with and disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit land during pendency of Original Suit No. 200 of 2017.

(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the ancestors of the petitioner, namely, Late Ram Richpal Marwari and Late Anandi Ram Marwari had purchased 2 Bighas 15 Katthas land appertaining to Khata Nos. 58 and 136 of Mouza-Chirkunda from Late Umesh Chandra Dutta-the grandfather of the private respondents in the year 1923 by virtue of registered sale-deed No. 731 dtd. 9/4/1923 and had come in possession of the said land. The said sale has also been mentioned in the remarks column of Cadastral Survey Settlement Record of Rights of Khata No. 136, however, on the basis of the alleged wrong entry of the name of Late Umesh Chandra Dutta in the Record of Rights relating to the land of Khata No. 58, the private respondents fraudulently got their father "s name (Gopal Chandra Dutta) entered in the Register-II in connivance with the officials of the Circle Office, Nirsa, Dhanbad and started making claim over the suit land in the year 2013. Thereafter, the "Karta " of the petitioner "s family filed Title Suit No. 83 of 2013, however, the same was subsequently withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh suit. Thereafter, the "Karta " of the petitioner "s family filed a petition before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad for cancellation of Jamabandi Nos. 42 and 58 wrongly running in the name of Gopal Chandra Dutta. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad called for a report from the respondent No.3 and thereafter the respondent No.3 made spot verification and reported that the said land of Khata No. 58 was in possession of the Hindu Undivided Family of the petitioner and the ground for creation of Jamabandi in the name of Gopal Chandra Dutta was not mentioned in Register-II. The said petition for cancellation of Jamabandi is still pending before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad. In the meantime, the private respondents again tried to disturb the possession of the petitioner and a proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C was initiated vide M. P. Case No. 1664 of 2016 which was later on dropped vide order dtd. 20/1/2017 with an observation that the dispute of the land in question was relating to the title and hence the parties were at liberty to file suit before the competent Court of law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 200 of 2017 against the private respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the land in question and for confirmation of his possession over the same. In the meantime, the respondent No.5 filed an application dtd. 17/5/2017 before the respondent No.3 for measurement of the suit land and to appoint Amin for the said purpose. The respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice dtd. 19/5/2017 to the petitioner initiating Land Measurement Case No. 01/2017-18 and fixing the date of measurement of the suit land on 20/5/2017 appointing two Anchal Amins to do the same. However, the said Anchal Amins, Nirsa, Dhanbad submitted the report dtd. 20/5/2017 stating therein that the land in question was in possession of the petitioner and since title suit was pending before the Civil Court for deciding title in respect of the suit land, they could not make measurement of the same due to apprehension of breach of peace. Again on 22/7/2017, the respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner asking him to produce all the relevant documents regarding the land in question on 28/7/2017. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner produced all the documents before the respondent No.3 on 28/7/2017 and also informed about pendency of the title suit in the Civil Court in respect of the said land. However, the respondent No.3 again served the impugned notice dtd. 17/8/2017 to the petitioner appointing three Anchal Amins for measurement of the suit land fixing the date of the measurement on 24/8/2017. However, the Anchal Amins could not make measurement of the land in question on the said date on account of private dispute between the parties. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition on 19/8/2017 in Original Suit No. 200 of 2017 stating the fact of issuance of notice dtd. 17/8/2017 to him by the respondent No.3, however, no order was passed on the said application. The petitioner also filed a petition on 15/6/2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC for granting temporary injunction. However, the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Dhanbad dismissed the said petition vide order dtd. 30/8/2017. Thereafter, the petitioner issued notice through his Advocate to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating that the Revenue Court did not have any jurisdiction to decide the question of title during pendency of Original Suit No. 200 of 2017 and the action of the respondent No.3 would amount to interference with the trial of the suit. The petitioner also represented the respondent No.2 to set aside the impugned notice dtd. 17/8/2017 issued by the respondent No.3 for measurement of the land in question.

(3.) Mr. R. S. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the revenue/administrative authorities cannot interfere with the suit land particularly when the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court which is the only competent Court to decide the question of title. It is further submitted that appointment of Amins to measure the suit land would amount to interference with the possession of the petitioner over the suit land and it can change the nature and character of the same. The respondent No.3 is arbitrarily trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner during pendency of the suit which is not permissible in law. The respondent No.3 has no authority to issue notice for measurement of the suit land, rather the Court may appoint any Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI CPC Rule 9 and 10 for elucidating the real truth by making local inspection of the suit land as well as by taking measurement of the same and submitting the report on the point required by the Court in the pending civil suit.