SHYAM NARAYAN TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 20.6.2000 passed by the Deputy Collector. Land Reforms, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 2/99 -2000, order dated 23.10.1998 passed by Circle Officer, Ranchi in case No. 2669 R -27 of 1989 -90 whereby prayer of the petitioner for making correction in Register II in respect of lands of Khata No. 362, plot Nos. 1996 to 1998 having an area of 5.80 acres has been rejected.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he along with his brothers (proforma respondents) are the occupancy raiyats of the land which was part and parcel of Survey Khewat No. 2/.l of village Misirgonda and it was recorded as tenure interest of Mahadeonath Misir and Makhsudannath Misir of village Tanti having 4 annas share. The disputed plots which was consisted of a tank and pind, was recorded within Khewat No. 15 which was joint khewat of Khewatdars. Petitioners further case is in 1942 there was partition of land of R.S. Khewat No. 15, Khata No. 362, Plot Nos. 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 fell in the share of Mahadeonath Misir and Makhsudannath Misir who came in exclusive possession of the same and use the tank for irrigation and fishing purpose. In 1941 the above named tenure holders settled the aforesaid tank and pind to Yogendra Narayan Tiwari, father of the petitioner by virtue of registered deed of settlement. After settlement petitioners father Yogendra Narayan Tiwari exercised his exclusive right and enjoyment over the said tank till his death. It is contended that in 1955 -56 respondent State of Bihar under mistake tried to settle the said raiyati tank as Sairat and attempted to occupy the same. Lessee of the petitioners father Mangra Oraon objected to the same and after verification and recommendation of the Circle Officer, Kankc the proceeding was dropped. The dispute arose when in 1990 some interpolation was made in Register II and the name of one Damyariti Devi wife of Balram Misir was alleged to be fraudulently entered in place of the petitioner. On the basis of said entry Damyanti Devi executed sale deed in favour of Ram Das Gupta and others, Petitioner then filed Title Suit being T.S. No. 136/90 against Damyanti Devi and others for declaration that the sale deed dated 27.5.1987 executed by her was illegal and void. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by the Munsif, Ranchi holding that petitioners have got title over the said property and they are in possession of the same and the sale deed executed by Damyanti Devi was wholly illegal and void. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, the defendant Damyanti Devi filed Title Appeal being T.A. No. 18/96 in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was ultimately heard and decided by Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsif and dismissed the appeal. The defendant then filed Second Appeal being S.A. No. 131/98R, which was also dismissed by this Court on 1.11.1999. It is therefore, contended that the title and possession of the petitioner and his brother over the said Tank and pind was thus upheld upto this High Court. After passing of the judgment and decree the petitioner and his brother produced the same before the Circle Officer where the said case No. 2669 -R -27 of 1989 -90 was pending and prayed for disposal of the case in view of decree passed by Civil Court. It is stated that the Circle Officer took an strange view contrary to the order of the Additional Collector and even without attaching any importance of the Civil Courts Judgment and decree rejected that application of the petitioner and his brothers observing that petitioner may file appeal against the order before the competent authority. Petitioner then filed appeal before the D.C.L.R., Ranchi being Jamabandi Sud -harhama Appeal No. 2/99 -2000. It is contended that inspite of production of judgment and decree passed by Civil Court and confirmed by the High Court, the D.C.L.R. has taken peculiar view in the order dated 20.6.2000 and rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the Tank and pind belong to the State of Bihar and the same was transferred to the Fishery Department and the Fishery Department used to make Sairat Settlement of the said Tank and therefor the claim of the petitioner is baseless. The respondents State of Bihar filed their counter -affidavit and the stand taken by them is that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court and confirmed upto this Court, the State of Bihar and the present respondents were never made party, although the property in question is under the jurisdiction and possession of Department of Fishery, Government of Bihar. It is further stated that the Tank appertaining to the said disputed land has been settled in 1996 -97 for a period of three years to one Shashl Kumar Munda for a sum of Rs. 1,510/ - only. It is further stated that petitioner has concealed the fact in the proceeding that the Tank in question was in possession of the State of Bihar. Respondents further case is that the claim for correction in Register II does not arise for the reason that Jamabandi never exists in the name of the petitioners father Yogendra Nath Tiwari. A fictitious Jamabandi was existed in the name of one Damyanti Devi. wife of Bal - ram Nath Misir, which was cancelled by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Ranchi vide Order dated 16.6.1998 in a proceeding initiated by the Circle Officer. The State of Bihar transferred the Tank and pind in question to the Fishery Department in 1992 and the Tank was regularly settled by the Fishery Department.

(3.) MR . Marathia, learned State counsel mainly contended that the plots in question are recorded as Gair Mazarua Malik lands in the R.S. Record of Rights. Thus the disputed tank and its embankment are the property of the Government. Learned counsel further submitted that the tank has been regularly settled by the Fishery Department on auction since 1971 and the last settlement was made in the year 1990 -91 to 1992 -93. As a matter of fact, the Government of Bihar, Revenue and Land Reforms Department transferred the tank to the Fishery Department vide letter dated 17.3.1992 of the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi. Learned counsel further submitted that a fictitious Jamabandi did exist in respect of the land in the name of Damyanti Devi which was cancelled by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide his order dated 16.6.1998 in a proceeding initiated by the Circle Officer. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the tank in question is a jalkar Sairat of the State of Bihar, now Jharkhand and the Jamabandi was opened in the name of the petitioner or his predeces -sor -in -interest on the basis of registered deed executed by the ex - landlord in the year 1942.