NANDA DULAL DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Additional Collector, Dhanbad in Rent Fixation Case No.7/III/200304, whereby the proposal on the application of the petitioner for fixation of rent of the land being R.S. Plot No. 952 under Khata No. 35 of Budha Mouza, has been rejected.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Khata No. 35, Plot No. 952, area 1.02 acres, situated at Mouza Budha, District Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as "the land") was the part of the share of Raja Durga Prasad Singh, who granted Mokari Right to his wife Rani Smt. Hem Kumari Devi on 06.12.1912. Thereafter, the name of Rani Smt. Hem Kumari Devi was recorded in the Survey Khatian of the year 192223. The said land was settled by Rani Smt. Hem Kumari Devi in favour of the father of the petitioner namely, late Rasik Chandra Das by registered deed of settlement dated 19.05.1948 and since the date of settlement, the father of the petitioner enjoyed possession over the property. It is further submitted that when the father of the petitioner died, the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the said land. In the year 2003, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name and for issuance of rent receipt of the said land, wherein the Halka Karamchari submitted its report that the application for mutation cannot be considered without fixation of rent. Thereafter, an application for rent fixation was filed by the petitioner which was registered vide Rent Fixation Case No. 7(III)/200304 and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector vide order dated 21.02.2004 recommended for fixation of rent of the said land @ Rs. 50/per acre and sent the record to the Additional Collector, Dhanbad (respondent no. 2). The respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 29.07.2004 rejected the proposal for fixation of rent of the said land by holding that since the land was transferred after 01.01.1946, the same will have no effect in view of the provisions of section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

(3.) Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 has neither initiated any proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") nor has given any opportunity by giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that out of the same khata and plot, an area of about 2.00 acres of land was settled in favour of other person and the rent receipts were also being issued in his favour, however, the respondent no. 2 arbitrarily rejected the proposal of the respondent no. 3 for fixation of rent of the said land. It is further submitted that the effect of vesting under Section 3 of the Act is that only the Zamindari interest of intermediaries with effect from 1953 vested in the Government and not the raiyati settlement made by registered deed on 19.05.1948. It is further submitted that after vesting of Zamindari, return was filed by Rani Smt. Hem Kumari Devi vide Compensation Case No. 5448 (BLA) 195556 in the office of Circle Officer, Dhanbad, wherein, in Column No. 7, the total Gair Abad Malik Land has been shown as 60.22 acres and the plot of the petitioner is also included in the said Gair Abad Malik Land. It is further submitted that since the document in question was registered at Dhanbad Sub-Registry Office and the same has been confirmed by the Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad, it cannot be construed that the action of Rani Smt. Hem Kumari Devi was to defeat the provisions of Section 4 of the Act for her own personal benefit. It is further submitted that Smt. Rani Hem Kumari Devi had also settled the land to other persons even in the year 1951 and their names were also mutated and rent were collected from them. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court (the period of unified Bihar) in the case of "D.N. Jatia v. The State of Bihar and Ors." reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 819 and submits that the right to hold the property cannot be denied, unless the same is determined by the competent authority in accordance with law.