SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 3/99 whereby the Additional Collector has passed the order cancelling the Jamabandi earlier created in favour of the petitioners ancestors and that too without giving him any opportunity of hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the descendant of the ex -landlord and having been found in physical possession M -Form was issued in respect of the land in question and subsequently the petitioners name was entered in the revenue register as far back as in the year 1979. The rent was assessed and being realized since 1952 and the petitioner has been granted rent receipts continuously. He has been in physical possession of the same. According to the petitioner, he has got right, title and interest over the land in question. The petitioner has also transferred a portion of the said land and the transferees have been in possession of the portion transferred to them. The ancestors of Suraj Manjhi (respondent No. 7) had also got the settlement from him. The respondent No. 7 subsequently filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro complaining some irregularity regarding the entries in respect of the said land. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector directed the Circle Officer to inquire into the matter. The CO. submitted a report on 20.5.1999 wherein he observed that there was no irregularity in transfer of the said land. The LRDC, thereafter, rejected the application of the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 thereafter filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bokaro which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 3/99. In the said appeal the petitioner was not made a party, no notice was served on him and the -said appeal was decided behind his back. The Additional Collector by his order dated 30.9.2002 directed to cancel the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner and to open Jamabandi in favour of the respondent No. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Jamabandi once created in his favour by a competent authority cannot be cancelled by the Additional Collector and that too without giving him any opportunity of hearing.

(3.) MR . V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Additional Collector has got no jurisdiction to cancel the long running Jamabandi of the petitioner and as such the Impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. learned Counsel further submitted that the said Jamabandi was opened after holding an enquiry by the competent Revenue Officer and the same was standing for decades. There was no appeal/revision against the order opening Jamabandi. There is no allegation of any fraud in obtaining the order. learned Counsel submitted that the Additional Collector has got no jurisdiction to pass an order of cancellation of the said Jamabandi and reopen the issue once decided and became final.