Sudhir Kumar vs Circle Officer, Nagri Anchal, Ranchi

Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Naiyar Eqbal, Advocate.

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition was initially filed for the following reliefs:-

 “For a direction upon the respondent no. 4 to act upon the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Section 14 of Bihar Tenants

Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973, when admittedly the vendor of the petitioner was a recorded tenant in the Sirista of the State of Bihar

(now the State of Jharkhand) and was being granted rent receipt in acknowledgement thereof, (instead of trying to scratch a nonexistent/dried wound)

on the anvil of statutory frame work which enjoins him to pass order within a period fixed.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition for amendment of the writ petition was filed being I.A No. 4765 of 2016 to challenge the order

brought on record in the counter affidavit. The petition for amendment was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2017 and the following prayer was

inserted:-

“For quashing of the order of cancellation of Jamabandi contained in letter dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional

Collector, Ranchi as well as for quashing of the order contained in Mutation Case no. 265R27/2005-06 TR 04R8/2015-2016 dated 20.06.2016 and

corresponding to order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Circle Officer Nagri Anchal, District Ranchi as are contained in Annexure-B and A of the

counter affidavit.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi and also the order impugned order

dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi submits that from perusal of both the orders contained on the same page it appears that

some notice has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner and the impugned order for cancellation of Jamabandi has been passed. He submits that by

the order dated 20.08.2015 the learned Additional Collector Ranchi had recommended for cancellation of Jamabandi standing in the name of the

vendor of the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 20.08.2015 has agreed to the said recommendation. Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the property in question has been purchased by the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed no. 5329/4837 dated 03.05.2001.

He submits that the petitioner is highly prejudiced by the impugned action and order and accordingly the petitioner should also be heard in the matter,

particularly in view of the fact that under similar circumstances orders have been passed by this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the petitioner also

submits that the impugned order is contrary to the various notifications issued by the then State of Bihar which are also applicable to the State of

Jharkhand.

Counsel for the respondents submits that it appears that the impugned proceedings arise under the provisions of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land

Reforms Act, 1950 and he submits that no notice is required to be issued to the petitioner as the notice was duly issued to the vendor of the petitioner.

However, he could not dispute the fact that by the impugned action and order, the petitioner has been prejudiced.

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, this court finds that the impugned action of cancellation of

Jamabandi which has been recommended by the Additional Collector, Ranchi and agreed to by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide impugned

order dated 20.08.2015, certainly affects the rights of the petitioner and serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as the said order has been

passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further it appears that the vendor of the petitioner having sold the property has no

interest in the property.

Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that an opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby

he has agreed to the recommendation made by the Additional Collector, Ranchi, is hereby quashed and set aside on account of violation of principles

of natural justice and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 13.07.2018 along with a copy of this order and a

petition making out his case. Upon his appearance, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi after hearing the petitioner and considering the materials

produced by the petitioner and other materials on record shall pass fresh order within a period of two months from 13.07.2018.

If the petitioner does not appear on 13.07.2018, the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi will continue to have its

force.

It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the case.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that application for mutation has been rejected by the Circle Officer which is a consequential order

to the impugned order dated 20.08.2015. Considering this submission, it is directed that if the petitioner ultimately succeeds before the Deputy

Commissioner, Ranchi all consequences will follow.

This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

Pending, I.A. No. 98/15 and I.A. No. 774 of 2015 stands dismissed.

 Â

Â