Babloo Bankira & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

Respondent- State.

Respondent No.5 has not entered appearance despite repeated

steps for service of notice and also paper publication. It is on the

application of the Respondent no.5 being R.E.R Case No.21/1980-81

that the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, Respondent no.4 directed

eviction of the petitioner under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana

Tenancy Act, 1949 by the impugned order dated 21.5.1984

(Annexure-3) from the piece of land comprising Plot no. 768 and 769

at Mouza Parsha, Thana Mahagama, District Godda measuing 19

dhoors and 2 Kathas 5 dhoors respectively. In appeal being R.M.A.

Case No. 20/1984-85 preferred by the aggrieved petitioners, the

order dated 21.5.1984 passed by the Respondent no.4 was affirmed

by the Respondent no.3, Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide order

dated 22.12.1986 (Annexure-5). The Revisional Authority,

Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, Respondent no.2

also did not find any infirmity in the order of eviction and the affirmed

the same in R.M.R. No. 411/1986-87 by the impugned order dated

23.3.2001(Annexure-6).

Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge

to the impugned decisions has sought to convey that the original

recorded tenant, Karpuri Ram, who died leaving behind his widow

and son namely Mahendra Singh, Husband of Respondent no.5 had

relinquished his claim over the property in question in the year 1932

and handed over the possession to the predecessor of the petitioner

namely Mahboob Mandal for construction of the house. Petitioners

had remained in continuous possession thereupon since 1932 and

have also constructed a house. Petitioners also contended in their

show cause before the Respondent no.4 in the Ejectment proceedings

that in the recent survey operation their names were recorded in

respect of the land in question. They have relied upon the report of

the Anchal Amin dated 5.9.1988(Annexure-4) to support their claim

of possession over the plot in question since long. Petitioners

contended that they have lands contiguous to the land in question

which has also been amalgamated. Their predecessor, Mahboob

Mandal had constructed the house in 1932 and they are in

continuous possession thereupon. They have taken a plea of adverse

possession having continued in possession for 12 years before

coming into force of the S.P.T. Act, 1949.

Respondent Authorities have however came to consistent

findings that no documents signed by the recorded tenant or

Kurfanama were evidenced to support the existence of bonafide

transaction of transfer of property by the said Karpuri Ram in favour

of the ancestor of the petitioners. Though the petitioners contended

that the land has been mutated in their name but no such document

was either filed nor the report of the Anchal Amin referred to the

order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioners or their

ancestors. The Appellate Authority, Deputy Commissioner, Godda

also held that the Appellant had no documents to show and prove

their alleged occupation since 1932 and that the recorded tenant had

allowed them to take possession of athe aforesaid land. Even before

the Revisional Authority, petitioners failed to produce any single chit

of paper which could substantiate their claim of possession over the

land in question since 1932.

By way of supplementary affidavit filed in the present case on

10.3.2017 petitioners have enclosed the mutation detail(Banda

Parcha) in respect of plot no. 1106/769 of Khata no. 27 and 8 under

Mouja Parsha, Thana Mahagama as proof of mutation. The said

document however does not show any reference of creation of

jamabandi in favour of the petitioners or their ancestor. No other

documents of settlement or conveyance of land in favour of the

petitioner or their ancestor has either been brought on record in the

present writ petition to substantiate their claim.

Respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit have also

supported the impugned orders as per the statements made at para

10 thereof. According to them the land in question are purely

jamabandi land and fall within the purview of Section 20 and 42 of

the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949.

They are non-transferable in nature. The land in question stood

recorded in the name of Karpuri Ram in the Gentzer''s Settlement.

Petitioners were found to be encroacher of the aforesaid land. In the

proceedings initiated by the descendants of the recorded tenant,

Karpuri Ram, after due opportunity to the petitioners, the impugned

decision has been taken. They also contended that no alleged

kurfanama was filed in the Courts below. Land were also not mutated

in the name of the petitioner, if at all they possessed it before 1949.

A bunch of rent receipts with regard to the disputed land was filed by

the Respondent no.5 in the Court below in support of their claim as

legal heirs of the recorded tenant. Since the claim of the petitioners

was found to be in teeth of the provisions of the Act of 1949, the

Respondent Authorities have directed their ejectment.

I have considered the entire material facts noted herein above

and the submission of the parties. It is apparent from the record and

on perusal of the impugned orders that though petitioners claimed

continuous possession over the piece of land in question since 1932

on the basis of relinquishment by the recorded tenant, Karpuri Ram,

but no document or Kurfanama showing such conveyance or

settlement of land in their favour either prior to 1949 or thereafter

has been brought on record to substantiate their claim. Even the

claim of possession has not been substantiated by any opening of

jamabandi in their favour. This findings have also been consistently

recorded by the inferior Courts in the impugned orders.

On consideration of totality of facts and circumstances,

petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference in the

impugned orders, which do not appear to suffer from illegality or

factual infirmity. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly

dismissed. Interim order dated 3.1.2006 stands vacated.