- (1.) HEARD the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 8.6.1984, passed by the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh, refusing to accept rent for the lands belonging to the petitioner. The order of the Circle Officer was affirmed by the D.C.L.R. on 24.3.1986 and was again affirmed by the Additional Collector in Revision Case No. 24/1994 and finally was affirmed by the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. All these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, his predecessor had got all right, title, interest and possession over the lands of Khata No. 40, which was their raiyati lands and they were paying rent to the State. When the rent fell due for certain period, the State Government filed a certificate case for realization of the arrears of rent against his ancestors and pursuant thereto his ancestors cleared all the rents so due. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any rhyme and reason the respondents have stopped accepting the rent and, therefore, an application was made before the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh to accept the rents but the prayer of the petitioner was objected by the private respondents. The Circle Officer rejected the application of the petitioner, which was affirmed up to the Court of Commissioner as already stated above.
(3.) THE petitioner has based his claim for acceptance of rent on the basis of a judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 3/1974 of 1949 of the Court of Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid title suit was filed by the respondent no. 5 Raghubir Singh and others against the ancestors of the petitioner and in the said suit the civil court by a judgment and decree dated 29.4.1950, held that the lands in question were the raiyati lands of the" defendant, i.e. the present petitioner and they were in possession of the same. The judgment of the said title suit was affirmed in appeal as well as in the second appeal and, therefore, the petitioner has every right to get his name mutated and to pay rents for the lands held and possessed by him.;