- (1.) The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity.
(2.) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 03.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the decision of the authority as contained in Letter No.3540/Ra, dated 29.07.2015 whereby the proposal for cancellation of jamabandi has been confirmed in terms of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950). Further the order dated 02.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04, whereby jamabandi opened in the name of Lal Maheshwari Nath Shahdeo, has been cancelled.
(3.) The facts of the case which require to be enumerated read as hereunder: The land pertaining to Khata No.383 Plot Nos. 492, 496, 443 and 446, situated at village Pundag Thana No. 228 District Ranchi is recorded in R.S record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo under Khewat No.2 of the said village. According to the petitioners, the then landlord orally settled 80 acres of land of R.S Plot No. 492 and 8 acres out R.S Plot No. 496 of Khata No.383, village Pundag, Thana No.228, District Ranchi by way of Hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 to one Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo and put him in possession of the said land. The settlee also paid rent of the said land to the landlord. The then landlord also settled R.S Plot Nos.443 and 496 to Kedar Nath Chaturvedi and R.S Plot No.446 to Nasirun Nisha. The landlord created a Trust known as "Chintamani Trust" and transferred the said land including other properties to the Trust and accordingly the settlee started paying rent to the Trust. After vesting of the land, the return was filed by the said Trust wherein Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo has been shown as settlee of the said land. A proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the Trust with respect to the said land and after due enquiry, the proceeding was dropped vide order dated 03.08.1959 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. Thereafter, a demand was opened in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo by the order of Additional Collector, Ranchi vide letter no.3247 dated 07.12.1964 and he started paying rent to the State. After the death of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, his wife, namely, Draupadi Devi inherited the said land and came in physical possession of the same. Draupadi Devi sold 10 acres of the said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No.492/A of Khata No.383, to the mother of the petitioners-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo, namely, Kanak Kumari Devi by virtue of registered deed dated 23.02.1983 and possession was also given to her. Draupadi Devi also sold 20 acres of said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No. 492/B of Khata No.383 to one Anapurna Devi by another sale deed dated 19.02.1983 and she also came in physical possession of the same. Both Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi filed applications before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi for mutation of the names of the purchasers. The said applications were registered as Misc. Case No.1/1985-86 and Misc. Case No.2/1985- 86. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi vide order dated 01.07.1988 made a recommendation to the Additional Collector Ranchi for realization of rent from the applicants. In the meantime, a proceeding was initiated against Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo with respect of 88 acres of land pertaining to Plot No.492 and 496 of Khata No.383 situated at village Pundag Thana No.228, District Ranchi and by order dated 15.06.2006, the Jamabandi running in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo was cancelled behind the back of Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi. Aggrieved by the said order, Kanak Kumari Devi and others filed an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 which was also rejected. Thereafter, Kanak Kumari Devi alongwith Anapurna Devi filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2008 and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent-State of Jharkhand preferred a petition for modification of the order, being C.M.P. No.214 of 2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. After death of Kanak Kumari Devi, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Sahdeo approached the respondents for issuance of rent receipt but nothing was done, as such, a contempt case being Cont. (Civil) Case No.52 of 2013 was filed which was dismissed for default. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.283 of 2011 was also filed by Anapurna Devi, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2011, against which a letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 244 of 2012 was filed by the respondentState and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the rent receipt was being issued to said Anapurna Devi. The petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo filed W.P.(C) No.644 of 2016 for issuance of rent receipt in his favour wherein the respondent-State has filed counter affidavit stating that the Jamabandi of the settlee was cancelled on 02.02.2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same was confirmed on 29.07.2015 u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Thereafter, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2017 and the petitioners-Anapurna Devi and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo have filed W.P.(C) No.2783 of 2017 challenging the order dated 02.02.2012 and other consequential relief. The point agitated before the learned Single Judge was that once the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was dropped on 03.08.1959 after a full-fledged enquiry, no fresh proceeding or order under Section 4(h) of the said Act could have been initiated as the same is barred by the principle of res judicata. Further, the petitioner is claiming the right upon the said land by virtue of the settlement made in the year 1943, i.e., much prior to 01.01.1946, but the alleged enquiry or the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is completely illegal and not in consonance with the provision of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 due to lack of inherent jurisdiction. The State had appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 02.12.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 cancelled the jamabandi of land in question and the said order has been confirmed by the State Government vide Letter No.3540/Ra, dated 29.07.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand with respect to the said land. Further, it has been submitted that as per the Register-II of Village Pundag since the demand with respect to the land in question under Khata No.383 Plot No.492 has not been opened in the name of the writ petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo, the question of issuance of rent receipt does not arise. The proposal under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was send by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on the strength of the order passed by him in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 and the said proposal has been confirmed by the State Government and has been communicated vide Letter No.3540/Ra, dated 29.07.2015. The writ Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties had quashed and impugned orders with a direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioners treating the jamabandi standing in their names as legal and valid. So far as the claim of right, title and interest upon the said land are concerned, the respondents were at liberty to move before the competent civil court, if so advised, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. ;