RAKESH GOYAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) under section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short 'CNT Act'), whereby the order of eviction of the petitioners from the land in question has been passed with a further direction to deliver the possession of the same to the respondent no. 6.

(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land, pertaining to Khata Nos. 36 and 37, having total area 195 acres, situated at village Maheshpur, Police Station Angara, District Ranchi (hereinafter called the said land), is recorded in the name of Sanjha Munda, son of Aghnu Munda and others, as would be evident from the Revisional Survey Record of Right published in the year 1935. One Surab Khan had purchased the land of Khata no. 36 through auction sale held on 20.03.1937 and started paying rent thereof. After vesting of Zamindari, the State Government mutated the said land in favour of Surab Khan having found him in possession of the land and rent receipt thereof was also issued in his favour. After the death of Surab Khan, his legal heirs came in possession of the said land and subsequently the petitioners purchased some parts of the said land through different registered sale deeds during the years 2013-16 and jamabandis were also opened in their names. Suddenly, the petitioners received notice vide Memo no. 272(ii) dated 104.2018 under section 71-A of the C.N.T Act, which has been issued, pursuant to the order dated 102018 passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R Case No. 13/2016-17, against six persons, namely, Surab Khan, Rajesh Goyal (the petitioner no. 1, however, the same appears to be wrongly typed as Rakesh Goyal in the cause title), Birendra Prasad Pandey (the petitioner no. 2), Lal Sai Munda, Nand Lal Sahu and Mustafa Khan, all residents of Maheshpur, Angara, District-Ranchi by which the possession of the land measuring an area of 184 acres (being an area of 9.78 acres, recorded under Khata No. 36 and an area of 3.06 acres, recorded under Khata no. 37) of village Maheshpur, Thana No. 11, District Ranchi has been directed to be delivered on 05.05.2018 at 11:00 am in favour of Sonia Munda (the respondent no. 6). After receiving the said notice, the petitioners enquired into the matter and came to know that a land restoration case was initiated on an application of said Sonia Munda (the respondent no. 6), wife of Lenga Munda. Pursuant to the said application, the Anchal Adhikari, Angara held an enquiry and sent his report to the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 vide Letter no. 374 (ii)/Ra dated 9.9.2016 directed the respondent no. 4 to initiate a proceeding under section 71-A of the CNT Act for restoration of land, measuring area 195 acres being an area of 9.89 acres recorded under Khata No. 36 and an area of 3.06 acres recorded under Khata No. 37 of village Maheshpur, Thana No. 11, District Ranchi against six persons. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 registered a case, being S.A.R Case No. 13 of 2016-17, and called for a report from the respondent no. 5, who enquired into the matter through Revenue Karamchari/Circle Inspector and prepared the report showing Rajesh Goyal and Birendra Prasad in illegal possession of the part of the said land. The respondent no. 4 passed the order dated 102018 on the basis of the report of Anchal Adhikari for eviction of the said six persons from the land in question and to deliver the possession of the same to the descendants of the recorded tenants and directed the Anchal Adhikari to submit compliance report, which gives rise to the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners have assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing has been given to them before passing the same. It is also submitted that the impugned order was not passed in fair and proper manner since a dead person, namely, Surab Khan was also made a party respondent in the land restoration case and the order has been passed against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 5 has wrongly been declared in part possession of the said land who has no concern with the land in question. Further, no order has been passed against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 who are in actual possession of the part of the said land. It is further submitted that the recorded tenant of Revisional Survey Record of Right has extinguished his right, title and interest over the said land after its acquisition by Late Surab Khan.