MEGHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including the final order dated 03.08.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 in Misc. Appeal No. 15/2003 whereby, the mutation appeal was allowed by cancelling the long running Zamabandi in the name of Kail Mahto (uncle of the petitioner).

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that one Mahendra Kumar Dangi and others had filed an application before the respondent No.4 for cancellation of long running Zamabandi in the name of Kail Mahto with respect to the land of Village-Danguri, Thana Chouparan No.11, Khata No.3, admeasuring total area of 1.96 acres, which was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the respondent No.6 again preferred an application being Misc. Case No. 78/2002 before the respondent No.3 for cancellation of Zamabandi relating to the said land in which the petitioner appeared and filed his objection and after hearing the parties, the said application was also rejected vide order dated 08.07.2003 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) holding, inter alia, that since there has been long running Zamabandi in the name of Kail Mahto, the matter does not appear to be of cancellation of Zamabandi, rather it is an issue relating to title of the parties in which the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction. It was also observed therein that the parties may take recourse before the appropriate Civil Court. Subsequently, the respondent No.6 filed Misc. Appeal No. 15/2003-04 before the respondent No.2 against the order dated 08.07.2003 passed by the respondent No.3 in Misc. Case No. 78/2002. The said appeal was allowed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 008.2004 holding, inter alia, that since the petitioner was in possession of the land in question by virtue of a plain agreement, the Zamabandi running in the name of Kail Mahto cannot be allowed to continue and, thus, the Zamabandi relating to the land in question was cancelled. Aggrieved by the order dated 008.2004 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 15/2003-04 by the respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.