SHUBHAN ANSARI AND MAYA NASNI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND,THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RANCHI, THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, RANCHI AND THE CIRCLE OFFICER, RATU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary and Sri Saket Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. Order challenged in the instant writ petition is dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Circle Officer, Ranchi, rejecting the petitioners' application for accepting the cess and rent and for issuing rent receipts in lieu thereof, on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has stayed issuance of rent receipt in respect of Khata no. 383, plot no. 443 having an area of 8.85 acres (hereinafter referred to as the disputed land).

(2.) The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the disputed land is recorded as Gairmazarua khas in the record of rights in the name of ex-landlord Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo, son of Naval Kishore Nath Shahdeo, Maharaja, Palkotgarh. It is asserted that an area of 1.50 acres of the disputed land was settled in the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Jumman by the ex-landlord by virtue of a registered Kabuliyat executed on 30.04.1942; copy of the said document is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The ox-landlord accepted the said Kabuliyat and issued Hukumnama settling 1.50 acres of land in favour of the petitioners on 11.08.1944 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Subsequent to it, their father came in peaceful cuitivatory possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord, who issued rent receipts in his favour. On advent of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and vesting of the Jamindari the ex-landlord submitted M Form and Rent Fixation Case No. 6/R8/1955-56 was instituted before the Additional Collector for fixation of fair rent vide Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. Rent was fixed, which was duly deposited on behalf of the petitioners and rent receipts were issued in the name of their father till the year 1969-70, but suddenly the respondents stopped accepting the rent with effect from the year 1970. An application, vide Annexure-5 to the writ application, was preferred before the Anchal Adhikari, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi, which has been rejected by means of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel has brought to my notice that after the aforesaid application was preferred, the matter was investigated by Haika Karamchari and Circle Inspector and a report was submitted. Consequent thereof issuance of rent receipt was stopped and the application was rejected vide Annexure-7 to the writ application dated 3.2.2011.