CHANCHLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.K.Lal, S.C.(L&C) for the respondent State.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is against the order dated 03.09.2006 (Annexure -4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 20.07.2002 (Annexure -2) passed by the L.R.D.C. whereby the Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner explains that after considering the fact that the land which was originally recorded as Gair Majurwa Khas in the name of ex landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo in the Revisional Survey records of rights and the said landlord had settled 12 acres of land in favour of one Rang Nath Sahu who, in turn, had sold a total area of 41.99 decimals, out of which, 20 decimals were sold to the petitioner and the remaining in the name of the petitioner's husband and had mutated the name of the petitioner and accordingly, rent receipts used to be given to the petitioner. However, it appears that on the basis of some frivolous complaint, a proceeding was initiated at the level of the Circle Officer for cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner. It is submitted further that against similar order of cancellation, the petitioner's husband had moved this Court by filing a writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007. The same writ application vide order dated 17.06.2008, was disposed of holding that the Jamabandi recorded in the name of the petitioner's husband cannot be cancelled and the Court had recorded its observation accordingly. Learned counsel explains further that the same ratio would apply to the petitioner's present case also in view of the fact that the land in dispute in the present writ application is also part of the same land sold by the common vendor to the petitioner. Referring to the counter affidavit of the respondent State, learned counsel submits that though the respondents have tried to suggest that the State could prefer an appeal against the judgement of the Single Bench but till date no appeal has been filed. The petitioner's case, according to the learned counsel, is fully covered by the judgement of this Court passed in W. P.(C) 2900 of 2007.