2025:JHHC:20190 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 5059 of 2009 ----- Thakur Manmohan Singh Munda, S/o Late Hikim Shyam Sundar Singh Munda, R/o Village-P.O. & P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. The Circle Officer, at P.O. & P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC(L&C)-1 ----- CAV ON 23.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 23 / 07/ 2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, for compensation to the petitioner for alleged illegal encroachment of his raiyati land measuring 05 acres of Plot No. 1671, Khata No. 2 and Plot No. 1672 of Khata No. 317 of Mouza Sonahatu under Thana No. 58 of District-Ranchi. 2. It is contended that without any notice and without any acquisition of the said land, the hospital has been constructed by the State. CASE OF THE PETITIONER 3. Petitioner is Munda by caste, and a member of scheduled tribe, and is a raiyat of the lands situated in the revenue village-Sonahatu under P.S.- Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi. Both the plots of land were recorded in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh Munda in the revisional survey record of rights published in the year 1932. 4. The nature of land as per the record of rights of plot No. 1671 was Bakast Maalik, whereas of plot No. 1672 was Gairmazarua Malik. It is further case of the petitioner that these lands never vested with the Government by the operation of Bihar Land Reforms Act. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the primary health center has been constructed on the said plot without a formal process of land acquisition and payment of compensation to the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:20190 2 6. It is further averred that as per Khewat of said Mouza Sonahatu (Annexure-4), Khewat No.2 is recorded in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh as per the revisional survey. These lands come within the area of Mankii i.e. Headman of Group of Revenue Villages. In the record of right the land has been stated to be Jerath Malik, meaning private land. 7. This Khewat was prepared in the year 1930 and is part of the revisional survey. In the column4, it has been referred to as ILAKA, meaning thereby that these lands, within the area of Mankii. The Khatian of the said village, Sonahatu, at column no.2 of Annex-2 shows the land to be Jerath Malik in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh. Out of these 7.44 acres of land under Plot No.1671 of the petitioner dispute arose with regard to 1.33 acres. 8. Nature of land was Bakast as held in SAR Revision No.07 of 2020 which was decided in favour of the Petitioner. 9. The second limb of argument is about the nature of tenure. It is contended that both of these plots were Mundarikhunt Kattidari which did not vest in the State as per the provision under Section 14 of the CNT Act, on coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In order to buttress the argument that they were Mundarikhunts, a specific reference is made to chapter III of the survey report of Taylor. Petitioner was administered oath of Pradhani/Manki on 20.12.2007 (Annexure-19). 10. Mutation of the said lands were made by order dated 26.03.2010, correction slip was issued and rent was accepted by granting rent receipts. 11. In SAR Revision Case No.7/2020 vide order dated 13.09.2021 it is admitted that the land was recorded as Bakast Malik in the name of Ridai Nath Singh. CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS 12. As per the case of the respondent-State, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, the land situated at Mouza Sonahatu, Thana No. 58, measuring 05 acres of Plot No. 1671, Khata no.2 was Bakast and since after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the rent was never 2025:JHHC:20190 3 fixed and consequently was treated as Gairmazarua land. 13. So far Plot No. 1672 of Khata No. 317 is concerned, it is contended that being Gairmazarua Khas land, it is vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. At no stage, neither any return was filed after vesting nor rent roll was prepared and no entries were made in Register-II. 14. State Government has constructed 100 bed hospital over a total area of 6.75 acres on plot no.1671, Khata no.2; plot no.1672 Khatat no.317; plot no.1673 Khata no.318 as detailed in para 10 of the counter affidavit. 15. There was no material to show that land was settled in favour of the Petitioner by the ex-landlord. 16. It has therefore been pleaded that land being Government land, Petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. 17. As per the enquiry report conducted by Anchal Amin and Circle Inspector, Sonahatu, the land in question is situated at Mauza – Sonahatu, P.S No.58, Khata no.2 Plot no.1671, measuring area as 5.00 acres was Bakast and plot no.1672 of Khata no.317 was Gairmajurwa land that it vested in the state under the provisions of BLR Act 1950. 18. There is no material to show that petitioner was raiyats over Plot Nos.1671 and 1672. Plot No.1671 was recorded as Bakast land in the name of the intermediary before the abolition of zamindari. In the absence of any return or rent fixation, the land was treated as Gairmajurwa land and deemed to have vested in the state in the year 1956. 19. It has, however, been admitted that a primary government Ayurvedic dispensary, Sonahatu along with Ayushman Arogya Mandir is running on the said land. Apart from these, one two storied building, one toilet block and five broken houses were standing on the said land the premises in close with the boundary was an effect and land falls within the premises of the hospital. FINDING 20. Dispute in the instant case is about non-payment of compensation of land claimed by the petitioner, part over which admittedly Govt. 2025:JHHC:20190 4 building has been constructed on it. 21. Claim has been made regarding title over the land, which cannot be the subject matter of a writ court. However, when a lis can be decided on admitted facts or evidence, there is no point to relegate the parties to the court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of title. Admission can be of pleading and it can be also by evidence. Thus, where there is uncontroverted admission of evidence, the party concerned cannot setup a case which runs counter to such admission. 22. Dispute is with two plots of land viz Plot Nos.1671 and 1672. With regard to Plot No.1671, it has been admitted in para- 8 of the counter affidavit that nature of land was Bakast, it has however been contended on behalf of the Respondent-State, that said land vested in the State for want of rent fixation. 23. Dispute is not about nature of land and entries made. Dispute is about the implication of those entries. As per the case of the Petitioner, considering the nature of land, they were saved from vesting and consequently continued to be the proprietary land of the Petitioner. 24. In order to decide over the claim of the petitioner, it will be worthwhile to examine the nature of land and the effect of Bihar Land Reforms Act. 25. Legal position so far Bakast land of the ex-tenure holders is concerned, they were privileged land of the ex-landlord and if they were in their Khas cultivating possession, they were saved from vesting under Section 6 of the BLR Act. What would be effect, if the Bakast lands were not in the Khas possession, came up for consideration in Mathura Prasad Missir Vs. Most. Fulmati Kuer & Ors., 1976 SCC OnLine Pat 54. This case involved rival claim over a Bakast land, between the ex- landlord and the tenant-at-will. Patna High Court while deciding this issue in favour of the tenant-at-will held that that since the land was not in Khas possession of the tenure holder, therefore it was the tenant-at- will who acquired raiyati right over it. Thus, in only such Bakast land where the ex-landlord continued in Khas possession, after coming in force of the 1956 notification of vesting under BLR Act, they acquired raiyati right over it. However, where the tenure holders were not in Khas possession, the Bakast land was not saved from vesting. His Lordship 2025:JHHC:20190 5 observed: “The position is, however, different in respect of bakast lands which were not in “khas possession” of the intermediary on the date of vesting. That such an intermediary will not be a raiyat in respect of such bakast lands and that the same vests in the State admits of no doubt in view of the decision in the case of (3) Suraj Ahir v. Prithi Nath Singh (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 454).” 26. So far as Zirat land is concerned, it is defined under Section 118 of the CNT Act as landlord’s privileged land cultivated by the landlord himself or by his servants [Rajeshwari Devi Vs. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi]. By its very nature, it is considered to be in landlord’s Khas possession. Therefore, once the nature of tenancy is recorded as Zirat, it is saved from vesting in which the landlord acquired raiyati right after coming into force of the BLR Act. 27. Mundari Khunt Kattidari tenancy do not come within the definition of tenure under Section 2(q)(iii) of the BLR Act, therefore, such tenancy was saved from vesting. 28. Petitioner in the present case are the descendants of Khewatdar, meaning that they were tenure-holders, and their intermediary interest in the land vested in the State, except in cases if it was a Mundari Khunt Kattidari tenancy or the land was privileged land like Zirat. 29. Admitted fact of the case is that the land appertaining to Plot No.1671 area 7.44 acres was Bakast land, recorded in the name of revisional survey record of rights in the name of Thakur Ridai Nath Singh who was the tenure holder as per Annexure-1. Nature of tenancy was Mundari Khunt Kattidari tenure which was saved from vesting as has come in the order passed in SAR Revision No.07/2020. From the copy of khatian (Annexure-5 to the rejoinder of Petitioner dated-12.09.2023) it was a Zirat Maalik land recorded in the name of Thakur Riday Nath Singh, therefore was saved from vesting. It is difficult to accept the case of the State that it was not in the possession of the tenure-holder and rent was never fixed, consequently it vested in the State as non-agricultural public (Gairmazurwa) land. It was for the State to fix rent, and default in fixing 2025:JHHC:20190 6 rent cannot be a ground to hold that it had vested in the State. In any case claim of title on the basis of adverse possession cannot be adjudicated in a writ court. State is entitled to fix rent and claim its arrear, but is liable to pay compensation for the part of this plot of land on which construction has been made without acquiring the same. It has been admitted by the State in supplementary counter-affidavit dated 10.06.2025 that hospital has been constructed on this plot of land and a boundary wall has also been put over it. 30. Plot no.1672 Gairmazaruwa Khas fallow land (Parti Kadim) measuring 3.06 acre, as per record of right (Annexure-2 of the writ petition), recorded in the name of Thakur Riday Nath Singh who was its tenure- holder. This land should logically vest in the State under section 3 of the BLR Act, as they were non-agricultural public land. If such land had been settled by the ex-landlord to a tenant before the coming into force of the BLR Act, then the settlee could have acquired raiyati right over it. In the present case as the claim is not based on settlement, but on the basis of being a tenure-holder, therefore it can be regarded as vested, except if it was a Mundari Khunt Kattidari tenancy. 31. As per the case of the State, pleaded in para-11 of supplementary counter affidavit dated-31.10.2023, both the plots being Nos. 1671 and 1672, which came under Khewat Nos.1 to 2, were not Mundari Khunt Kattidari tenancy. The very nature of the land being Parti Kadim discounts any possibility of it being Khas possession of the tenure holder. Even if it is assumed that Plot No.1672 was a Mundari Khunt Kattidari tenancy, the petitioner being heir and descendant of the tenure- holder cannot claim any raiyati right over it, as it was not in their Khas cultivating possession, and it was also not a privileged land of the landlord. In the absence of such a right, there cannot be a claim for compensation, as the tenure holder is one who holds the land for the purpose of collecting land revenue, in contra-distinction to one who holds it for cultivation. Therefore, no subsisting legal right of the Petitioner in the land can be said to be violated so as to attract Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 32. In the result, writ petition is decided as under: 2025:JHHC:20190 7 a. So far claim of compensation with respect to Plot No.1671 Khata No. 2 of Mouza Sonahatu under Thana No. 58 of District-Ranchi is concerned, it was the privileged land of the landlord, and on the part of this plot, a hospital has been constructed in an enclosed boundary wall. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 3) is directed to initiate a land acquisition proceeding with respect to the portion on which the said construction has been made, as per the provisions under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. b. So far claim raised with respect to Plot No. 1672 of Khata No. 317 is concerned, the same is turned down as the Petitioner had no raiyati right over it. Writ Petition is partly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 23rd July, 2025 AFR /AKT/Satendra