Shadat Hussain vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for compensation of his land situated at Mouza Asahana No.606, Jamabandi No.12, Dag No.01 acquired.

Petitioner claims to have right, title and interest over the said property on the basis of the Settlement Case No.38 of 1938-39 by which it was settled in favour of his father by way of Amalnama and thereafter, he has been continuing in the possession of it. The entry in Register II has been affected by the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer in R.M. Case No.129 of 1961-62 on 26.05.1965 and thereafter, the rents are being paid which has been annexed as Annexure 2. Petitioner filed Misc. Case No.10 of 2016-17 before the Additional Collector, Deoghar for declaration of the above land as raiyati land which was rejected on the ground that Register II does not reflect the reason for making entry.

It is argued by the learned counsel that in a land acquisition proceeding, factum of actual possession of the claimant is to be considered which has been duly proved by the Jamabandi opened in the name of this petitioner and State accepting rent on his behalf. Despite this, the petitioner has not been recognized as Raiyat and compensation for land acquired, has been denied.

Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the entry in Register II is to be based on the order passed by the competent authority and should be reflected in the said entry. There is no reference of the order by which such entry was made. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the said plot of land since 1938, but the revenue receipts which has been brought on record is for the period 1986-87 to 1992-93 and 2001-07.

I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the State that in the absence of any order passed by the competent authority with regard to entry being made in Register II, mere issuance of rent receipt is of no significance. Furthermore, although the claim has been made that the settlement was made way back in 1938, but no order has been filed nor any document regarding possession post-vesting has been brought on record. There is no material to show that rent fixation made under Bihar Land Reforms Rule, 1951 by which petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest were ever accepted as tenant and rent was accepted on their behalf. There is no explanation whatsoever for no evidence of possession or rent payment for the period 1938 – 1985. In this view of matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

Writ Petition stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Petitioner will be at liberty to move before the competent jurisdiction to assert the claim for his right, title and interest.

This writ petition has been wrongly tagged with W.P.(C) No.3260 of 2020 and therefore, separate order is being passed.