MD.MUSLIM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents particularly respondent No. 3, the Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi to accept cess and rent and issue rent receipts in respect of the lands appertaining to Khata No. 383, plot Nos. 718 and 496, Khewat No. 2 situated at village Pundag in the district of Ranchi.

(2.) PETITIONER 'sease is that one Bara Lal Kandarp Nath Sahdeo, Ex -intermediary of Khewat No. 2, by a grant of soda hukum -nama in the year 1947, settled the land in question in favour of S.K. Sahamat and S.K. Ajmat of the said village and delivered possession of the said land to them. The said Sahamat and Ajmat, in their turn, executed a registered kabuliat dated 9.1.1947 in respect of the said land and came in possession of the same. Petitioner 's further case is that on vesting of the zamindari under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the ex -landlord submitted return showing the aforesaid two settles as raiyats. It is alleged that the petitioner being the sole eldest member of the family inherited the raiyati interest of the two settles in the year 1948. The ex -landlord created a Trust known as Chintamani Trust and all zamindari interests were given to the said trust. It is contended by the petitioner that the land was mutated in the name of his ancestors and their names were entered in Register -II and correction slips were issued in the years, 1982 -84 but for the reasons best known to the respondents no rent receipts were issued. Petitioner 'sgrievance is that the respondents have raised claim over the land in question on the ground that the same vested in the State of Bihar.

(3.) PETITIONER 'scase of coming in possession over the land in question by virtue of the alleged settlement made in the year 1947 and their subsequent possession, have not been denied by the respondents in the counter - affidavit. Possession always follows title. The creation of jamabandi in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner can also not be disputed for the reasons that in the notice issued by the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No. 65/2002 -03 creation of jamabandi has been accepted by the respondents. It further appears that in a proceeding initiated at the instance of Ananpurna Devi, a detailed report was submitted in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1985 by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ranchi which also, prima facie, supports the case of the petitioner. In my view, therefore, the matter needs consideration by the respondents in accordance with law before taking an ' action in the matter by passing reasoned order on the claim of the petitioner.