S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 04.11.2011 in Misc. Appeal No. 135 R 15/2002 -03 and quashing of order dated 26.05.1998/28.05.1998 in Case No. 3 R 8/1996 -97, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, by a registered deed of sale dated 16.01.1982, the petitioner purchased land comprised in Revisional Survey Plot No. 2196 appertaining to Khata No. 162 in Khewat No. 5 admeasuring an area of 1 acre situated at village - Arra, P.S. - Namkum, District - Ranchi. Vide Mutation Case No. 91 R 27/1981 -82, after due verification and enquiry, the name of the petitioner was mutated and correction slip was issued. Thereafter, rent receipt acknowledging payment of rent by the petitioner was also issued. On 16.10.2002, the petitioner came to know that on the recommendation of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector vide order dated 26.05.1998/28.05.1998, the jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 28.05.1998. Misc. Appeal No. 135 R 15/2002 -03 was filed challenging order dated 26.05.1998/28.05.1998. The mother of the petitioner namely, Gaitri Devi Dhundhari approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4554 of 2007 in which this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to dispose of the Misc. Appeal within a period of 3 months and vide order dated 04.11.2011, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the Misc. Appeal No. 135 R 15/2002 -03. The land in Plot No. 2169 under Khata No. 5 in village - Arra was settled in favour of one Punit Kuwar on 12.05.1943, who continued to pay rent to the ex -landlord till the date of vesting of jamindari. After the death of the said Punit Kuwar, her son Banmali Narayan Tiwari, the vendor of the petitioner, inherited the property of his deceased mother. After vesting of jamindari, the name of Punit Kuwar was entered in Register - II and she was recognised as raiyat by the then State of Bihar. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stating that, for annulment of the doubtful jamabandi in respect of land comprised in P.S. No. 178, Khata No. 162 in Plot No. 2169 created in the name of the petitioner, a Misc. Case proceeding bearing No. 3 R 8/1996 -97 was initiated by the Circle Officer, Namkum. After receiving the enquiry report of the concerned Revenue Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, Namkum, the record was forwarded to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi for further action. The report of the Circle Officer discloses that the land in question is not in possession of the jamabandi raiyat and it is recorded as "Gair Mazarua Malik" land in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights. After vesting of intermediaries rights, no return was filed by ex -landlord and thus, the land remained "Gair Mazarua" land. In the absence of any return, neither the jamabandi with respect to the land in question was created on the eve of vesting of jamindari rights nor any entry was made at the time of "Bujharat". The petitioner claimed that Khewat No. 5 was redeemed by Jagniwas Narayan Tiwary and Jagdip Narayan Tiwary however, she did not produce any evidence. It is not even disclosed how the said land in Khewat No. 5 was redeemed by those persons. The documents produced by the petitioner disclose that the said land stands recorded in the name of one Batuk Krishna Banerjee and Ashish Kumar Banerjee in the Revisional Survey Khewat and thus, Jagniwas Narayan Tiwary and Jagdip Narayan Tiwary had no right to settle the land in question in favour of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner namely, Gaitri Devi Dhundhari filed documents in Misc. Case No. 118 R 15/2000 -01 disclosing that on 29.01.1941 the said Jagniwas Narayan Tiwary and Jagdip Narayan Tiwary had mortgaged the entire property in Khewat No. 5 to one Mrs. Leela G. Muthu through a registered deed for a sum of Rs. 9,767/ - for repayment of Jarpesgi to Babu Batha Kisto Banerjee and Ashish Kumar Banerjee and thus, the said Jagniwas Narayan Tiwary and Jagdip Narayan Tiwary could not have settled the land in question on 09.12.1941. The petitioner has based her claim on the basis of a forged and fabricated unregistered documents. The basis of the petitioner's claim to the land in question, has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law as, these documents are not admissible in view of the provisions of Indian Registration Act. The jamabandi in the present case seems to have been opened by playing fraud as ex -landlord has no right to settle the land in favour of any other persons, after mortgaging the same by a registered deed with Mrs. Leela G. Muthu
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.;