RAMJI RANA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and surviving private respondents.

(2.) Petitioner and private respondents are related by blood. The dispute amongst them is in relation to opening of Jamabandi. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Case no. 23 of 194445 is basis for the petitioner to contend that one Ramrath Rana acquired 3.9.15 dhurs of Jamabandi no. 7 of Mouza Sirsakalan in the capacity of Karta of the joint family. Ramrath Rana and Sagan Rana both were full brothers and by way of family arrangement, the land in question was divided in half and entered in the name of both the brothers in Register-II maintained in the Circle Office. Both parties were paying rent separately. Respondent nos. 5 to 9 are sons of Ramrath Rana whereas petitioner is the son of Late Sagan Rana. Sagan Rana died in the year 1968 and his son petitioner cultivated the land in question on payment of rent, the Rent Receipts and Water Tax Receipts are enclosed as per Annexure 1 series. There was a Mutation Case no. 7/6869 wherein petitioner was found in peaceful possession upon inquiry. The instant proceedings have been initiated at the behest of respondent nos. 5 to 9 through Miscellaneous case no. 2 of 198283 before Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Godda. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Godda has by order dated 11th Jan., 1984 cancelled the long running demand in the name of petitioner pertaining to lands measuring 3 bighas, 9 kathas, 15 dhurs corresponding to plot nos. 8, 9 and 54 within Jamabandi no. 7 of Mouza Sarsakala (Annexure 3). In Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal no. 1 of 198485 preferred by the petitioner, the learned Deputy Collector, Godda has set aside the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, where under the name of the petitioner was removed from the Revenue Records. The private respondent nos. 5 to 9 preferred a revision before Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being Revenue Revision no. 12/198485, which has been decided against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 10th Oct., 2006 setting aside the order of Deputy Collector (Annexure 5).

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that long running demand cannot be annulled by the respondent Commissioner in such manner. The order is without jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court.