Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11983 (JHR)

MITHU SAO And ANR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS

WPC/1642/2011 · 2025-06-13

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:JHHC:15631] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1642 of 2011 1(i) Panwa Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of Late Mithu Sao 1(ii) Dhaneshwar Sao, aged about 47 years 1(iii) Ashok Sao, aged about 39 years 1(iv) Lalji Sao, aged about 45 years 1(v) Guna Devi, aged about 43 years 1(vi) Kanchan Devi, aged about 41 years All sons and daughter of Late Mithu Sao, resident of Village-Pakarkar, P.O. and P.S.- Katkamsandi, District-Hazaaribagh. 2. Ruplal Sao, son of Late Barhan Teli, resident of Village-Pakarkar, P.O. and P.S.-Katkamsandi, District-Hazaaribagh. ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. 2(i) Raj Kumar Singh 2(ii) Satyendra Singh 2(iii) Chanchala Devi 2(iv) Sunita Devi 2(v) Nitu Devi All sons and daughter of Late Loknath Singh and Residents of Village Sadanpur, PO- Sultana, PS-Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh. 3. Dashrath Singh, son of Prayag Singh 4(i) Ayodhya Singh 4(ii) Aabadh Singh 4(iii) Dilip Singh 4(iv) Vidya Singh All sons of Late Surendra Singh 4(v) Babloo Singh, S/o of Late Raj Kumar Singh, [2025:JHHC:15631] -2- grand son of Late Surendra Singh All are the residents of Village Sadanpur, PO- Sultana, PS-Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh. 5. Dharma Raj Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh 6(i) Gaya Prasad Singh, Son of Late Kedar Singh 6(ii) Binod Singh, Son of Late Kedar Singh Both resident of village-Paprar, P.S.- Satgama, P.S.-Katkamdag, District-Hazaribagh. 6(iii) Shanti Devi, daughter of Late Kedar Singh, W/o Mithilesh Singh, resident of Village-Ambajit, P.S. and P.s.-Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh. 7. Basant Singh, Son of Late Tulsi Singh 8. Gajendra Prasad Singh 9. Sagar Singh, Both sons of Late Ram Dular Singh 10. Ashok Singh, son of Late Kamakshya Singh 11(i) Ramesh Singh 11(ii) Ganesh Singh 11(iii) Gita Devi All sons and daughter of Late Nand Kishore Singh, residents of Village Sadanpur, PO- Sultana, PS-Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh. 12(i) Viaksh Singh 12(ii) Mahesh Singh 12(iii) Most. Manju 12(iv) Rina Devi All sons and daughters of Late Lalchan Singh, residents of Village Sadanpur, PO- Sultana, PS- Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh. ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate. [2025:JHHC:15631] -3- : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, Advocate. For the State : Mr. M.K. Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I. For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 13 : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate. ------ 29/ 13.06.2025 Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M.K. Ekka, learned A.C. to S.C.-I appearing for the State and Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 13 as well as the legal heirs of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 11 and 12. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2010, passed in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008 [Loknath Singh & Ors. Versus Mithu Sao & Anr.], whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag has been pleased to set aside the order of the DCLR, Hazaribagh in Misc. Revenue Case No. 14 of 2007-08 dated 13.03.2008 between the same parties. 3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners namely Barhan Teli reclaimed lands of 10 acres, in Plot No. 1221 in Khata No. 40 and 5 acres in Plot No. 1354 under Khata No. 185 of village Pakrar, P.S.- Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh with permission of the Ex-landlord of village namely Sadhu Singh. He submits that the land was measured by the Amin of the Ex-landlord and being satisfied, the said landlord settled the aforesaid land under a registered Patta bearing Deed No. 4059 dated 27.10.1945 and put the said Barhan Teli in physical possession of the same. He further submits that the character of the lands of Khata Nos. 40 and 185 of village-Pakrar, P.S.-Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh were recorded as Gair-majarua-khas of the Malik [2025:JHHC:15631] -4- i.e. of the Zamindar in the cadastral survey and was fit for reclamation and settlement by the ex-landlord of village-Pakrar, Hazaribagh. He then submits that the said land remained outside of the forest demarcation area even after the vesting of the Estate of Zamindars in the State of Bihar in the year 1952 and petitioners’ father i.e. Barhan Teli continued to cultivate the same and raise, produce and appropriate the produce. 4. Learned senior counsel submits that after the death of their father, petitioners came into possession of the said lands and the ex- landlords also died, but the State did not mutate the lands in the names of the petitioners, although applications for mutation were filed and documents were submitted by the father of the petitioners, which were also inspected by the Anchal Officials, C.O. and Halka Karamchari. In these backgrounds, he submits that the land in question was in possession of the petitioners, however, a petition was filed by the private respondents herein before the Circle Officer and the said Circle Officer sat over the matter and not passed any order and thereafter the private respondents moved before the DCLR in Misc. Revenue Case No. 14 of 2007-08, in which, the DCLR has called upon a report from the Circle officer and the report was there of possession in favour of the petitioners and thereafter the LRDC by the order dated 13.03.2008 has been pleased to allow the petition in favour of the petitioners herein. He submits that the said impugned order 13.03.2008 of the DCLR was challenged by the private respondents before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008, wherein the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.02.2010 has been pleased to set aside [2025:JHHC:15631] -5- the order of the LRDC and directed to mutate the name in favour of the private respondents herein. The Deputy Commissioner has further observed that the dispute can be settled by the competent civil court. He then submits that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the said order without jurisdiction, as he has no authority to pass the said order. He submits that the possession was in favour of the petitioners and in view of that the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly passed the said order. 5. On the point of jurisdiction, he relied in the case of Shyam Bihari Prasad & Ors. Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors. decided on 30.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 3168 of 2011. On the same line, he further relied in the case of Dipan Ram Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2002(1) JLJR 616 and also in the case of Smt. Bela Pandey Versus The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 565. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly passed the said order, as he has no jurisdiction to pass the said order and only the possession is required to be looked into and further the possession was there in favour of the petitioners, as such, the order of the Deputy Commissioner may kindly be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order and wrong submission was made before the Deputy Commissioner by the State counsel that the SDO is having the power of mutation. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly considered this aspect of the matter that the private respondents are having the registered deed of the land in question, in view of that he has rightly passed the said order. [2025:JHHC:15631] -6- 7. Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the petition was filed before the DCLR by the private respondents and on this petition, the wrong order has been passed by the DCLR in favour of the petitioners herein, which was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner finding the fact that the private respondents have purchased the lands in question 70 years back by a registered deed dated 16.11.1954 from the ancestor of the petitioners and in view of that he has passed the said order. He submits that the Circle Officer has found the possession of the private respondents herein and not of the petitioners herein. He submits that if the wrong order has been passed by the DCLR in light of the arrangement made in The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Deputy Collector / Deputy Commissioner is the authority to test the order of the DCLR. On these grounds, he submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the said order. 8. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record including the impugned orders. It is an admitted position in light of the discussions made by the DCLR and the Deputy Commissioner that the private respondents have purchased the lands in question in the year 1954 itself from the ancestors of the petitioners herein. The private respondents herein have filed a petition before the Circle Officer for mutating the land in question, however no order was passed, thereafter private respondents moved before the DCLR in Misc. Revenue Case No. 14 of 2007-08, in which, the DCLR [2025:JHHC:15631] -7- has passed the order for mutating the land in favour of the petitioners, which was challenged by the private respondents before the Deputy Commissioner in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 23.02.2010 has noted the submissions of all the sides and has come to the conclusion that the land in question was purchased by the ancestors of the private respondents herein in the year 1954 i.e. 70 years back from the ancestors of the petitioners herein and found that if the land in question is transferred by a registered deed, the mutation is required to be made in favour of the private respondents. The Deputy Commissioner has further found that if such a dispute is there, that can be decided by the competent civil court and in view of that he has found that the order of the DCLR was without jurisdiction and as such, the said order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. In the case Jamila Begum Vrs. Shami Mohd., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 727, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed and that it is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. Therefore, the it is clear that that there is a statutory presumption of validity of a duly executed registered deed and the onus is on the person who denies the same and it is to be proved in the proceedings of the original suit. Thus, this Court concludes that a revenue Court has to presume the validity and genuineness of a duly registered sale deed. 10. Further in the case of Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. Vrs. S.P. Velayutham, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 210, the Hon’ble [2025:JHHC:15631] -8- Supreme Court has held that only the competent Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine validity of a registered sale deed and if a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to the civil Court. Therefore, this Court reiterated that only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the validity of a registered deed conferring title over a land to another person. 11. In view of the deed and the dispute herein with regard to the possession and both the parties are contending that both are in possession and further the deed is in favour of the private respondents and if such dispute is there, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that such dispute can be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 12. So far as the contention of Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner is concerned in light of the provisions made in The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the mutations cases are required to be disposed of by the Circle Officer in light of Section 14 of the said Act, against the said order, appeal is provided under Section 15 of the said Act before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (DCLR) and further against the order of the LDRC, the revision power is there before the Deputy Collector / Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the said Act. 13. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the order has been passed by the DCLR and the next higher authority is the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised his power. In view [2025:JHHC:15631] -9- of that the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to test the order of the DCLR. The nomenclature of the case merely registering the case in the form of appeal cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly exercised his power, in view of that this court is not in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 14. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Dipan Ram (Supra) is concerned, in that case, the co-ordinate bench of this court has held that the circle officer is only required to see the possession and he is required to examine the sale deed. Thus, that judgment is not in dispute and the possession in the present case is itself in dispute in light of the submissions of both the sides herein. Further the judgment relied by Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel in the case of Smt. Bela Pandey (Supra), the facts of that case is of purchase of the land by the sale deed and possession and in view of that the Division Bench has held that she is in possession, in view of that the said order has been passed. The facts of that case are also distinguishable in the facts of the present case. The case relied by Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel in the case of Shaym Bihari Prasad & Ors. (Supra), it has been rightly held by the co- ordinate bench of this court that the order is passed under Section 15 of The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 that can be assailed before the Deputy Commissioner. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the power is exercised under Section 15 of The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, and in view of that it has been rightly assailed before the Deputy [2025:JHHC:15631] -10- Commissioner, under Section 16 of The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed. 16. In light of the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, the parties are put at liberty to move before the competent court having the civil jurisdiction. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]