UPENDRA NATH SINGH MANKI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order no. 112 dtd. 8/2/2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no. 1) in Ranchi Survey Appeal No. 60 of 2000 whereby petition filed by the respondent no. 4 seeking intervention in connected cases i.e. Ranchi Survey Appeal Nos. 60 of 2000 and 61 of 2000 has been allowed concerning the land appertaining to Mouza- Mankidih, Thana- Sonahatu, Thana No. 07, Khewat No. 4/1, District- Ranchi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that altogether 14 survey appeals i.e. Ranchi Survey Appeal Nos. 57 of 2000 to 70 of 2000 were filed under Sec. 89 (2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short, "the Act, 1908") by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar through the Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Doranda, Ranchi against Anabad Malik Mundari Khunt Kattidar represented through different inhabitants of said Mouza in the court of the respondent no. 1 against the orders passed by the I/C, Settlement Officer, Ranchi under Sec. 89(1) of the Act, 1908 with respect to different land of Mouza- Mankidih. Among the said appeals, the petitioner's father Manki Lakshman Singh and others were added party respondents in Survey Appeal No. 60 of 2000 arising out of Revision Case No. 962 of 1993 as well as Survey Appeal No. 61 of 2000 arising out of Revision Case No. 964 of 1993. It is further submitted that after death of his father, though the petitioner filed substitution petition in the above two appeals which was allowed vide orders dtd. 26/5/2014, however he has not formerly been substituted in the said appeals. The aforesaid appeals are still pending in the court of the respondent no. 1. The grievance of the petitioner as raised in the present writ petition is that the respondent no. 4- Manki Khetro Mohan Singh filed intervention applications seeking his impleadment in Ranchi Survey Appeal Nos. 60 of 2000 and 61 of 2000, which has erroneously been allowed by the respondent no. 1. In fact, the petitioner's family is not governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, rather is governed by the customary law of Munda. As per the customary law of Munda, the eldest son in the eldest male line will become Munda of Munda-Khunt Katti tenancy and accordingly, the property will vest in him. The respondent no. 4, who is the uncle of the petitioner, cannot interfere with the right accrued to the petitioner as per the customary law of Munda. Hence, the impugned order dtd. 8/2/2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the respondent no. 1, vide impugned order dtd. 8/2/2021, has merely permitted the respondent no. 4 to be impleaded as party respondent in Ranchi Survey Appeal Nos. 60 of 2000 and 61 of 2000, the claim of the petitioner that he has to be recognized as Munda of Munda-Khunt Katti tenancy of the concerned Mouza does not go away. The appeals preferred by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, are pending before the respondent no. 1. The right of the respective parties only as against the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand over different land of concerned Mouza is to be determined in the said appeals. Hence, this Court is of the view that the respondent no. 1, vide impugned order dtd. 8/2/2021 by permitting the respondent no. 4 to be impleaded as party respondent in the concerned pending appeals, has not committed any error and therefore, the said order does not require any interference of this Court.