Thanda Devi vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.07.2001/03.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Settlement Revision Appeal No.402 of 1988 affirming the order dated 09.09.1988 passed in Settlement Rev. Case No.348 of 1987 by which the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the Preparatory Khatian (Banda Parcha) was turned down.

As per the case of the petitioner, the land appertaining to R.S. Khewat No.6/ 5, Khata No.88 was recorded in the name of Sahbat Mahli vide Rent Appeal No.56  of  1935  by  Judicial  Commissioner,  Ranchi,  with  respect  to  Plot Nos.2241, 2243, 2246, 2247, 2249, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2260, 2265, 2267, 2268, 2299 and the same was accordingly mutated as Kaimi Kabil Lagan Khata Banam Raiyati under Khewat No.3.

It is further case of the petitioner that the land, in question was surrendered by ancestors, Meghul Mahli to the landlord vide Surrender Deed dated 19.06.1953.

Subsequent thereto by a Sada Hukumnama dated 07.02.1955, the petitioner’s ancestor, namely, Parna Mahto, S/o Bhawani Mahto (father-in-law and father of the petitioners), the lands, in question were settled by the then landlord, Sailesh Chandra Mitra.

After the said settlement, petitioners are in settled and peaceful possession of the land, in question.

In the recent survey settlement, which was initiated in the year 1983 onwards in the Ranchi District, the preparatory khatiyan (Banda Parcha) was prepared in the name of private respondents, however, showing possession of the petitioners in the Column 4 in the said Banda Parcha.

The entries were challenged by the petitioner(s) under Section 83 of the C. N. T. Act, which did not find favour and consequently revision was preferred under Section 89 of the C. N. T. Act which was rejected and hence, the instant Writ Petition has been preferred.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that this is a case where the settlement of land is vindicated by subsequent possession of the petitioner as the jamabandi was opened and the rent is being regularly paid to the State and the copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-4.

It is argued that in the revenue proceedings, it is not the title of the land to be looked into, but the possession. It has been established by opening of jamabandi and issuance of rent receipt till the year, 2022. Therefore, the order rejecting the objection is not sustainable.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the State that after final publication of record of rights, the petitioner does have efficacious remedy under the provisions of CNT Act. Further, the reason has been assigned as to why there was infirmity in the settlement as no permission under Section 72 of the C.N.T. Act was taken from the Deputy Commissioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the private respondents that the father of the respondent no. 6 had filed S.A.R. Case. No. 105/1974-75/TR-37/1998-99 against the Kali Mahto and others for restoration of land belonging to the same khata no. 88, plot nos. 2241, 2261, 2263, 2276, 2300 measuring an area 4.29 acres which was decided in his favour, the order for restoration has attained its finality.

Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is apparent that the survey settlement operation is not complete and final publication of record of rights has not been made under Section 84 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (for short CNT Act). The petitioners have efficacious remedy after final publication under Section 87 of the CNT Act. In this view of matter, at the interim stage when the survey settlement operation has not attained its finality, it will not be just and proper to interfere finding of fact as made in the revisional order and in the draft publication.

This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate step after final publication of record of rights.

Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.