BANDHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.05.2007, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag (respondent no.2) in Giridih Misc. Revision No.26/2003, whereby the order dated 13.12.2002, passed by the Additional Collector, Giridih in Misc. Case No.02/2002-03 was set aside. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, whereby the Circle Officer, Birni was directed to keep the jamabandi opened in the name of the three raiyats intact and continue to receive the rent from them.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Najo Koyari (Nijo Mahto as appears in cause title), father of the petitioner, had acquired a land under plot no.2, khata no.41, Sub-khata no.41/7, having area of 6.70 acres of village Garaguro (hereinafter called the said land) by way of settlement through Hukumnama granted by Ex-landlord Thakur Tulsi Narayan Singh in the year 1936. Thereafter, Najo Koyari made it cultivable and paid the rent to the ex-landlord and also obtained the rent receipts. At the time of vesting, the Zamindar submitted return before the state government and thereafter the state government also recognized the tenancy and since then the settlee Najo Koyari had been paying rent to the Government of Bihar. After the death of Najo Koyari, the petitioner came in physical possession of the land and paid rent to the State Government on 09.04.2001, the petitioner came to know that the private respondents in collusion with the Circle staff got their names mutated with respect to the said land and also obtained the rent receipt in their favour. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.3/2001-02 before the Circle Officer, Birni for cancellation of Jamabandi opened in the name of the private respondents and thereafter the Circle Officer called for report from the Halka Karamchari who in turn submitted report stating that in the Hukumnama, return of ex-landlord and old Register-II, the name of Najo Koyari is recorded and without any order, the jamanbandi was opened in the name of Churaman Koyari and Moti Koyari. The Circle Officer vide order dated 15.07.2003 referred the case to the L.R.D.C Giridih for passing appropriate order, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 152 of 2001-02. However vide order dated 30.03.2002, the Circle Officer was directed by the L.R.D.C. Giridih to continue with the settlement in respect of the private respondents. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Misc. Case No. 2/2002-03 before the Court of the respondent no.3 (Additional Collector, Giridih) which was allowed vide order dated 13.12.2002 with a direction to the Circle Officer to investigate the matter properly and create a Jamabandi in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondents filed revision before the respondent no.2 (Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh) vide Giridih Misc. Revision No.26/2003 which was allowed vide impugned order dated 08.05.2007 on the ground that the property was the joint property and after separation, the rent was paid by both the parties from 1979 to 2001 till Najo Koyari was alive and the same cannot be challenged after the lapse of 21 years.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the private respondents have failed to adduce any document before the courts below to show that the order of Jamabandi running in the name of the private respondents was passed by any competent authority. It is further submitted that the property exclusively belonged to the petitioner as the same was acquired by his father out of his own source of income and as such, the opening of Jamabandi in the name of the private respondents was bad in law. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has wrongly allowed the revision of the private respondents in the garb of section 24(a) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908. Since the property was not joint, the said section has no application in the present case. It is further submitted that the law of limitation runs from the date of knowledge and since the petitioner came to know about the fact only on 09.04.2001, there is no question of delay in challenging the jamabandi created in favour of private respondents. It is further submitted that the forgery committed by the private respondents is apparent from the return filed by the Ex-landlord as well as from the Tenants Ledger Register maintained at the Circle Office.