2026:JHHC:2646 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2591 of 2004 1. Abhay Kumar Shroff, 2. Amarnath Shroff Both sons of Late Hanuman Prasad Shroff resident of Deoghar Town, P.S. and District: Deoghar … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka District: Dumka 3. The Settlement Officer, Dumka, District: Dumka 4. Chander Tudu, son of Late Jina Tudu 5. Sona Hansda, s/o Late Ram Hansda 6. Bhadu Hansda, s/o Late Jagan Hansda (substituted vide order dated 11.05.2005) 6(i) Som Hansda, s/o Late Bhadu Hansda 6(ii) Kali Hansda, s/o Late Bhadu Hansda 7. Sita Beshra, d/o Late Anup Bashra 8. Munsi Beshra 9. Bhanu Beshra Both sons of Anup Beshra 10. Betaka Marandi, s/o Late Shibu Marandi 11. Nunu Hansda, s/o Late Hakim Hansda 12. Kamli Hansda, w/o Kisto Marandi 13. Lal Hansda, s/o Jagan Hansda 14. Baburam Kisku, s/o Sikar Kisku All residents of Village: Charki Pahari, Mouza No. 587, Thana Mohanpur, District: Deoghar. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I For Resp. Nos. 4 to 6 & 9 to 12 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate For Resp. Nos. 7, 13 and 14 : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate --- 26/02.02.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certorari for quashing the order dated 13.1.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 70/2002-03 dismissing the 2026:JHHC:2646 2 settlement revision and affirming and upholding the erroneous order dated 12.11.2001 passed in T.L. Case No. 7/2001 by the Settlement Officer Deoghar, and (ii) for quashing of the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka in T.L. Case No.7/2001 whereby the learned Settlement Officer arbitrarily and erroneously directed to record the names of the Private Respondents as raiyats deleting the names of the petitioners in the new Survey Record of right brushing aside the order of the Competent Court whereby the land was settled in favour of the petitioners' father followed by delivery of possession through the process of the Court and thereafter continuous possession on payment of rents to the State and for any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners.” 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.01.2004 (annexure- 8) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 70/2002-03 whereby the settlement revision has been dismissed and the order dated 12.11.2001 (annexure- 7) passed in T.L. Case No. 7 of 2001 by the Settlement Officer has been upheld. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 12.11.2001 (annexure-7) passed by the Settlement Officer in T.L. Case No. 7 of 2001 whereby the settlement officer directed to record the names of the private respondents as raiyats deleting the name of the petitioners in the new survey record-of-right. The specific case of the writ petitioners is that the petitioners acquired the property by the order of the Competent Court in favour of the petitioners' father followed by delivery of possession through the process of the Court and thereafter continuous possession on payment of rents to the State. Factual background 4. While giving the foundational background of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the raiyats with respect to the last survey settlement plot no. 50 appertaining to Jamabandi No. 10 of Mouza Charkipahari No. 587, P.S. Mohanpur, Sub-Division and District- Deoghar corresponding to Settlement Plot Nos. 118 to 136 of the said Mouza. 2026:JHHC:2646 3 5. The case of the petitioners is that Jamabandi No. 10 of Mouza Charkipahari No. 587 was recorded in the name of Roberson Mahato, who was the Pradhan (landlord) along with other co-sharers and the class of land was recorded as “Pradhan Ka Jote”. The recorded tenant defaulted in payment of village rent and consequently, a proceeding was initiated for dismissal and ejectment of Pradhan from his post and the proceeding was registered as PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. Vide order dated 17.09.1948, the said Pradhan was dismissed and was directed to be evicted from his Jamabandi No. 10 including Plot No. 50 of the said Jamabandi. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that execution case being Rent Execution No. 813 of 1942 was initiated upon an application filed by the Deputy Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner endorsed the application again by his order dated 16.02.1944 to evict and dismiss the Pradhan. The said application bearing recommendation by the Deputy Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 7. It is submitted that in the said execution case, notices were issued and all the processes were followed and the father of the petitioners was ready to deposit the decretal dues of plot no. 50 and take settlement of the same. The father of the petitioners filed a petition dated 03.11.1947 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar stating that he was the Basouri Raiyat of the village Charkipahari and had also obtained settlement of some parti land in the village. The father of the petitioners was ready to take settlement of plot no. 50 and it was mentioned that rest of the ‘Jot” may be restored to the evicted Pradhan. The said application (annexure-2) was also endorsed by the Pradhan. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that by order dated 17.09.1948, Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar settled the plot no. 50 to the petitioners’ father on payment of full decretal dues, however, the settlement was made provisionally in view of any objection that may 2026:JHHC:2646 4 be raised from any quarter. The proceeding sheet including the order dated 17.09.1948 has also been enclosed along with the writ petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prior to passing the order dated 17.09.1948, the Pradhan and the Jamabandi Raiyats were also given opportunity of hearing and ultimately, the order dated 17.09.1948 was passed and on the same date, the decretal amount was also received by the Court as is apparent from the order sheet itself. 10. The learned counsel has submitted that ultimately, the property was put through the process of handing over the physical possession and the physical possession of the property was handed over to the father of the petitioners on 27.04.1949 by the Sub-divisional Officer (Annexure-4). Thereafter, the petitioners paid rent continuously to the landlord (Pradhan) and obtained rent receipts (annexure-6 series ). The petitioners asserted that the petitioners and their father were in continuous possession of the property. The cause of action 11. However, the cause of action arose when the new survey and settlement operation started and the petitioners had put certain persons on the property for cultivation. Such persons are the respondent nos. 4 to 14 and the property in the new survey was shown as settled in their favour. 12. The petitioners filed objection in connection with the wrong entry made in the new survey which was numbered as T.L. Case No. 7 of 2001 and the order was ultimately passed against the petitioners on 12.11.2001. The claim of the petitioners was rejected and there was a direction to prepare a purcha in the name of the respondent nos. 4 to 14 by order dated 12.11.2001 (annexure-7). 13. The order dated 12.11.2001 was challenged before the Revisional Authority i.e., the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka which was numbered as R.M.R. Case No. 70/2002-03. The learned commissioner dismissed the revision (annexure-8). 14. Submissions of the petitioners. 2026:JHHC:2646 5 a. The impugned orders contained in Annexure- 7 and 8 are perverse. b. The proceeding arising out of rent recovery suit and its execution proceedings by which the property was acquired by the father of the petitioners and they obtained possession through the process of court in execution proceedings way back in the year 1949 stood concluded and attained finality and there is no material to show that at any point of time, with respect to the same property, that is, plot no. 50, the Pradhan was restored of his rights. He has submitted that it has been recorded in the said proceedings of the year 1949 that the Pradhan was restored of his rights only in connection with his remaining property and therefore, there was no question of any settlement by Pradhan with respect to the same property, that is, plot no. 50, in favour of the private respondents. c. The settlement under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act is preceded by a due process and merely because somebody was found on the spot, no purcha can be issued in their favour. d. The competent authority in the rent execution case no. 813 of 1942 has recorded that the ‘Jot’ was restored to the Pradhan only with respect to the remaining property. e. However, through the impugned orders the authorities have entered into the legality and validity of the proceedings which had taken place and concluded way back in the year 1949 and attained finality which had ended up giving physical possession of the property that is, plot no. 50, to the father of the petitioners upon payment of the arrears of rent which was due and payable by the Pradhan resulting in release of only remaining jot to the Pradhan. f. The proceeding by which the property, that is, plot no. 50, was handed over to the father of the petitioners stood concluded and attained finality and therefore, the impugned orders questioning the legality and validity of the earlier proceedings of the year 1942 to 1949 call for interference. 2026:JHHC:2646 6 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that since the proceeding was initiated for realization of the rent and for termination of Pradhani of the Pradhan on account of default in payment of rent and the father of the petitioners had acquired the property and also its physical possession through the process of court, it was not open to the respondents to interfere with such proceeding by stating that the settlement was provisional and by stating that the Deputy Commissioner had not approved the settlement. There is no material to show that the Deputy Commissioner had not approved the settlement or to show that the proceedings in the execution case which ended in handing over physical possession of the property to the father of the petitioners was set aside or physical possession of the property was taken back from the father of the petitioners or the money paid by the father of the petitioners to satisfy the decretal dues of the Pradhan was ever refunded to the father of the petitioners or the petitioners. There is no material to show that the Pradhan was ever restored his right with respect to the plot no. 50 involved in this case. This is over and above the fact that the father of the petitioners throughout paid rent to the landlord (Pradhan) with respect to the property after delivery of physical possession of the property through the process of court. Arguments of the respondents 16. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 17. The learned counsel for the State has referred to the counter- affidavit dated 11.02.2005 (paragraph 8) and has submitted that the settlement made with the father of the petitioners by Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar was not approved by the competent authority and the petitioners were not found in possession over the land and it was Adivasi raiyats who were actually found in possession over the land in question and therefore, the settlement officer rightly passed the order for opening Khata in the current survey and settlement operation in the name of the Adivasi raiyats. 2026:JHHC:2646 7 18. However, upon a query of this Court as to when the settlement was initially made in favour of Adivasi raiyats, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that this fact is neither apparent from the counter-affidavit nor is apparent from the impugned orders. He has submitted that the entry was made in their favour on the basis of the fact that on the spot they were found in possession. 19. The learned counsel for the private respondents has placed the impugned orders and has submitted that the settlement made by Sub- divisional officer was provisional and there was no final approval of the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the petitioners were not found in physical possession of the property on the date of survey in the year 1992 and therefore, an order was passed for making entry in favour of the persons who were found on the spot. 20. The learned counsel for the private respondents has also submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 7, 13 and 14 and he submits that it is the specific stand of the respondents that in the year 1948 a provisional settlement of land was made by incompetent authority and the same was illegal and was never ratified/recommended by the Deputy Commissioner and as such, the claim of the petitioners is illegal and improper. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7, 13 and 14 has further submitted that the settlement was made in favour of the private respondents by the order of the Pradhan as the ‘Pradhan ki Jot’ was returned to the ‘Pradhan’ and the post of the Pradhan was also restored. He also submits that Pradhan was found defaulter in paying rent and such proceeding was started by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43 and the provisional settlement was made in favour of Hanuman Prasad Shroff, the father of the petitioners, vide order dated 17.09.1948 although the Sub-divisional Officer was not the competent authority. He has submitted that since only provisional settlement was made, the land automatically returned to the Pradhan after payment of the due rent/arrears of rent by the Pradhan and therefore, the Pradhan had the right to settle the property in favour of the private respondents. However, it is not in dispute that 2026:JHHC:2646 8 the order of the Pradhan settling the land in favour of the private respondents is not on record and no such details is available on record. Findings of this Court 22. The facts apparent on the face of the proceeding sheets of PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 are as under: - a) on account of non-payment of arrears of rent, a proceeding for eviction was initiated against the then Pradhan in the court of Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar being PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43. b) Thereafter, Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 under the signature of the Deputy Collector and also under the order of the Deputy Commissioner was initiated for recovery of the rent through execution proceedings. c) The proceeding sheet as contained in annexure-3 reveals that Notices were issued to all Jamabandi Raiyats, but nobody came forward to take the settlement. The records further reveal that on 03.11.1947, father of the petitioner Hanuman Pd. Shroff filed a petition before the S.D.O. Deoghar who was conducting the aforesaid PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 stating that he was Basauri Raiyat of village Charkipahari and was ready to deposit the decretal dues and take settlement of plot no 50 and rest of the 'Jote' and ‘pradhani’ may be restored to the evicted Pradhan for which the Judgment Debtor (Pradhan) had also endorsed that he had got no objection. d) By order dated 17.09.1948 in P.E. Case No. 58/1942-43 the S.D.O. Deoghar provisionally settled the said Plot No. 50 on payment of full decretal dues in favor of the petitioners’ father Hanuman Pd. Shroff. e) As per annexure -4, on payment of the said Decretal amount the writ for delivery of possession (Basgari Pawana) was issued by order dated 28.03.1949. Thereafter, in pursuance of the same, possession of the said Plot No. 50 was delivered to 2026:JHHC:2646 9 the authorized agent of father of the petitioners by beat of drum and hoisting flag on the spot in presence of persons named in the order itself. The authorized agent of Hanuman Pd. Shroff received the possession and signed the delivery report of possession. f) As per annexure-5, the report of delivery of possession was submitted and subsequently confirmed by the S.D.O. by his order dated 27.04.1949. 23. All the aforesaid facts are supported by the materials annexed with the writ petition which include the proceeding sheets relating to PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43 / Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942. The aforesaid facts as recorded in the aforesaid proceedings is not in dispute even in the impugned order. 24. The dispute arose after expiry of more than 50 years during survey settlement operations when Respondent no. 4 to 14 were found on the property and the said authority entered their name in the survey record for which the petitioners’ father filed objection in the Tasdik Camp Mohanpur which was registered as T.L. Case No. 7/2001 and ultimately the settlement Officer passed an order directing to prepare the parcha in the name of the respondent nos. 4 to 14 by order dated 12.11.2001 (annexure-7). Petitioners preferred Revision before Divisional Commissioner which was registered as R.M.R. Case No. 70/2002-03 and was dismissed on 13.01.2004 upholding the said order. 25. The impugned order reveals that the divisional commissioner accepted that the aforesaid proceedings regarding settlement and handing over possession have been recorded in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 which ended in the year 1949 showing that the possession of the property was delivered to the father of the petitioners upon payment of decretal dues and remaining property (jot) was released in favour of the defaulter , the Pradhan and his pradhani was also restored. 26. However, the authority raised a point that the settlement made in favour of the father of the petitioners way back in the year 1949 2026:JHHC:2646 10 was only provisional and the settlement was not confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and that proper procedure regarding service of notice to jamabandi raiyats was not followed in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 way back in the year 1942 to 1949 and the father of the petitioners never came in physical possession of the property. Further the authority has recorded that upon payment of arrears of rent the property was returned to the Pradhan and at present the property has been made available to the private respondents through patta. Apart from the aforesaid, reliance has been placed on one FIR no. 39 of 1997 wherein certain allegations have been made against the father of the petitioners. 27. In this case through the impugned orders the entire proceedings which ended way back in the year 1949 arising out of rent recovery suit and its execution for recovery through PE Case No. 58 of 1942- 43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 is sought to be challenged after expiry of more than 50 years. This court is of the considered view that the challenge is without any foundational/ legal basis for the following reasons: - a) The fact that father of the petitioners was put in possession through due process and by beat of drums is not only apparent from the proceeding sheet of PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 but also from the rent receipts which have been placed on record as contained in annexure 6 series and not disputed by the respondents. The finding that the father of the petitioners was never put in possession is perverse. b) It is important to note that in the court proceedings of PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 it has been recorded that the settlement was provisional and payment of arrear rent of the judgement debtor (Pradhan) was also paid by the father of the petitioners with the consent of the Pradhan and under the orders of the authority dealing with PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 which was followed by handing over physical possession of plot no. 50 through beating of drums and process of court and the 2026:JHHC:2646 11 proceeding ended way back in the year 1949 and the proceedings remained unchallenged even by the Pradhan in whose favour the remaining jot, except plot no. 50 was released. Questioning the entire proceeding after 50 years on the ground that there is no recording in the order sheet that provisional settlement was confirmed cannot be permitted in law and such a stand is not based on any material on record. Merely because there is no mention of confirmation of settlement in the order sheet of PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 the same is not enough to say that there has been no confirmation. The parties have acted and the execution proceeding was followed by delivery of possession. Admittedly, the proceedings in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 was never challenged by anyone. It is important to note that in case the settlement was not confirmed at that point of time the money deposited by the father of the petitioners on account of decretal dues of the Pradhan could not have been retained by the state. The law is well settled that any judicial proceedings are required to be challenged as per law failing which the same is binding on the parties and also the concerned authorities. The proceedings which concluded 50 years back in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 and remained unchallenged, cannot be permitted to be questioned in other proceedings that too after expiry of 50 years in other proceedings of survey settlement operations. None of the parties took any remedy as per law in connection with PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942. c) The respondent authorities have also questioned the proceedings of PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 by stating that the notice was not properly served upon the other jamabandi raiyats and the procedure was not followed as per law. Such plea is without any basis. Proceedings undertaken in rent suit/execution 2026:JHHC:2646 12 proceedings arising out of rent suit cannot be challenged in other proceedings relating to survey settlement operations conducted after expiry of 50 years from conclusion of proceedings. d) The finding that upon payment of arrear rent the property was returned to the Pradhan is ex-facie perverse as there is no material placed on record by the respondents to support this fact and further no date of such payment of arrear by Pradhan and return of land to Pradhan has been mentioned and Pradhan is not even a party to the proceedings. When the authorities choose to question the proceedings concluded 50 years back, the findings have to be based on some materials on record which is totally absent in this case. Further, the payment of arrear rent by Pradhan and return of land to Pradhan has to be supported by some proceedings arising out of previous proceeding, either modifying or setting aside the orders passed in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942. Had there been any such proceedings, there would have been an order refunding the money paid by the father of the petitioners on account of arrear rent. There is noting on record to support the aforesaid contention of the respondent authorities. e) In the impugned order it has been further recorded that there was payment of arrears of rent by Pradhan followed by return of land to Pradhan and then the settlement was made by Pradhan in favour of the private respondents through patta with respect to the property involved in this case. However, such recording is neither supported by any document nor supported by any rent receipt nor supported by any date or even year of alleged settlement in favour of the private respondents. Further no such material has been placed by the respondents even in counter affidavits filed in the writ petition. f) It is important to note that in the impugned orders much reliance has been placed on the allegations made in one FIR no. 2026:JHHC:2646 13 39 of 1997 and such reliance is ex-facie perverse. Allegations made in FIR no. 39 of 1997 cannot be used by the respondent authorities to question the proceedings in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942 concluded 50 years back. 28. This Court is of the considered view that the authorities have no jurisdiction to enter into the legality and validity of the proceeding which had culminated way back in the year 1949 in PE Case No. 58 of 1942-43/ Rent Execution Case No. 813 of 1942. This Court is also of the considered view that the respondent authorities have committed serious perversity in entering into the legality and validity of the aforesaid proceedings which ended in delivery of possession to the father of the petitioners way back on 27.04.1949. Further, there cannot be any settlement of the same property to the private respondents without following any procedure of law. The rent receipts (annexure-6 series) issued in favour of the father of the petitioners have also been brought on record by the petitioners. 29. In view of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order dated 13.01.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 70/2002-03 as well as the impugned order dated 12.11.2001 passed in T.L. Case No. 7 of 2001 by the Settlement Officer, are set-aside. 30. This writ petition is hereby allowed. 31. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order:02.02.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 20.02.2026