GOPI KRISHNA ROUT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.11.2010 passed in R.M.A Case No. 74 of 2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent no. 2) whereby the order dated 16.03.2005 passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 04 of 2004-05 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Deoghar (respondent no. 3) has been set aside.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the grandfather of the petitioner namely Sachindra Nath Rout was the Amin in Rohini Estate and he was settled an area of 4.22 acres in Mcpherson Survey Plot No. 284, 286 and 287 of Mouza Shyamganj (hereinafter to be referred as the "said land") by the Rohini Estate under Court of Wards in the year 1944 in lieu of plot no. 71 to 95 as per order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division vide letter no. 38 of 1865 issued in Settlement No. 428 of 1944. After the death of grandfather of the petitioner, the said land was partitioned in T(P) Suit No. 177 of 2002 on the basis of compromise coupled with delivery of possession. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for fixation of rent being Rent Fixation Case No. 04/2004-05 before the respondent no. 3, who vide order dated 16.03.2005 fixed the annual rent of the said land as Rs.150 per year. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 instituted a suit being T(D) Suit No. 55/2002 for declaration of its right, title, interest and possession of the said land against one Amar Nath Roy in which, later on the petitioner was also impleaded and finally the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 and 11.08.2010 respectively. The respondent no. 4 however challenged the order dated 16.03.2005 passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 04/2004-05 before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Respondent no. 2) vide R.M.A Case No. 74/2010 and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2010 in favour of the respondent no. 4, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order has ignored the verdict of the Civil Court passed in T(P) Suit No. 177 of 2002. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed relying on entirely new facts that the settlee i.e. grandfather of the petitioner namely Sachindra Nath Rout was settled the land for agricultural and fishery purposes which fact was neither pleaded by any party nor raised at any point of time. It is further submitted that appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 against the judgment dated 30.07.2010 and decree dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Sub-Judge- II, Deoghar in T(D) Suit No. 55 of 2002 is still sub-judice before the appellate authority and as such interference in the rent matter was not required by the respondent no. 2 at this stage. It is further submitted that actually the respondent no. 4 is claiming a land pertaining to plot no. 414 which is situated on the east of the Bamacharan Road whereas the land of petitioner is situated at the west of the said road. It is also submitted that the Land Acquisition Case No. 58 of 1962 and 05 of 1964 and the map filed by Respondent No. 4 in Title Suit No. 55 of 2002 clearly depict that land of the respondent no. 4 is plot no. 414 only. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 is apparently illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The respondent no. 3 has passed the order of fixation of rent of the said land in favour of the petitioner after serving due notice to 16 anna raiyats as is mandated for fixation of rent and as such the same is completely justified.