BHIM SINGH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved against the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2002 by which the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 07.07.1995, (Annexure-3) passed by the Circle Officer, Sonahatu in Uttaradhikary Case No. 121 of 1995-96 on the ground that the Circle Officer, Sonahatu had no jurisdiction in the matter to decide the question of title in respect of the claim of Jamindari of Khewat i.e., Mundari Khunt-kattidar.

(2.) It appears from the facts of the case that, in the matter of Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy, which is a special right created by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and for which special provision with respect to the Mundari Khunt-kattidars have been provided in the Chapter XVIII of the Act of 1908. There was dispute between the petitioner Madhu Sudan Munda(now deceased) and the present appellant Bhim Singh Munda with respect to particular Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy for Khewat No. 4/1.

(3.) It appears that Circle Officer passed one order on 07.07.1995 in Uttradhikary Case No. 121 of 1995-96 and decided the said question of title in favour of Madho Singh Munda and Madhusudan Singh Munda, respondent nos. 4 and 5, declaring them to be Jamindar of said Khewat No. 4/1. However, Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti on 12.10.2001 entertained an application under Section 242 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 filed by Bhim Singh Munda(respondent no. 5 of the writ petition) wherein Sub-Divisional Officer held that for declaration of their title and the right, the proper forum is to approach the Civil Court in view of the dispute between the parties with regard to the title and, therefore, the SubDivisional Officer, Khunti refused to decide the dispute. Madhusudan Singh Munda, petitioner, approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 229 of 2002, wherein learned Single Judge held that since the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 07.07.1995, therefore, that order is without jurisdiction and consequentially set aside. Appellant aggrieved against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2002, has, therefore, preferred this appeal.