Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Displayphp 3 527500

    Uploaded by

    Vibhash Singh
    The document discusses a court case regarding a land dispute. The petitioners claim rights over a plot of land based on a settlement from the previous landlord. However, the court and commissioner rejected their appeals due to lack of evidence like registered settlement documents or rent receipts issued by the state after it took ownership of the land. The high court upholds the lower courts' decisions dismissing the writ petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Displayphp 3 527500

    Uploaded by

    Vibhash Singh
    13 views2 pages
    The document discusses a court case regarding a land dispute. The petitioners claim rights over a plot of land based on a settlement from the previous landlord. However, the court and commissioner rejected their appeals due to lack of evidence like registered settlement documents or rent receipts issued by the state after it took ownership of the land. The high court upholds the lower courts' decisions dismissing the writ petition.

    Original Title

    displayphp-3-527500

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a court case regarding a land dispute. The petitioners claim rights over a plot of land based on a settlement from the previous landlord. However, the court and commissioner rejected their appeals due to lack of evidence like registered settlement documents or rent receipts issued by the state after it took ownership of the land. The high court upholds the lower courts' decisions dismissing the writ petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Displayphp 3 527500

    Uploaded by

    Vibhash Singh
    The document discusses a court case regarding a land dispute. The petitioners claim rights over a plot of land based on a settlement from the previous landlord. However, the court and commissioner rejected their appeals due to lack of evidence like registered settlement documents or rent receipts issued by the state after it took ownership of the land. The high court upholds the lower courts' decisions dismissing the writ petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

    W.P.(C) No. 2188 of 2003


    ------
    1. Sahodar Mahto
    2. Mahendra Mahto .... .... …. Petitioners
    Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand
    2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
    3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
    4. The Charge Officer, Settlement Court, Ranchi
    5. Shamlal Mahto
    6. Soma Mahto
    7. Ramu Mahto
    8. Balram Mahto
    9. Jitu Mahto ..... .... .... Respondents

    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

    For the Petitioners: Mr. H.K. Mahato, Advocate


    Ms. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate
    Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate
    For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I
    ------
    Order No.19 / Dated : 19.02.2024
    1. Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
    29.06.1999 passed by Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in
    Ranchi Survey Appeal No.186 of 1987 by which the order of Charge Officer,
    Settlement Court, Ranchi in Survey Revision Case No.1170/94, has been
    affirmed directing the land in question to be recorded in the name of State.
    2. As per the case the of the petitioners, Plot No.395 of Khata No.48,
    Village Gareydih, P.S. Tamar area 2.63 acre, was recorded in R.S. Record of
    Right as Gair Mazarua Khas of the ex-land lord, Kishan Govind Tiwary. Out
    of the said plot, 1.60 acres was settled in favour of father of the petitioners by
    the heirs of ex-land lord on 03.03.1940.
    3. After the death of father, petitioners came in settled possession of the
    land and have been paying rent to ex-land lord and then to the State of Bihar
    after vesting of the intermediary right. In the recent survey operation,
    objection under Section 83 of C.N.T. Act was invited regarding the said plot,
    in which father of private respondents raised objection which was dismissed
    and the Banda Parcha was prepared for the said plot as Plot No.640/395 of
    Khata No.111 to be recorded in the name of State of Bihar.
    4. Petitioners filed appeal before the Court of Commissioner which was
    disposed of by confirming the order of the Charge Officer in Survey Appeal
    No.186/1987 which was dismissed on 29.06.1999 confirming the order of the
    Charge Officer dated 06.07.1996. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was
    rejected by the learned Commissioner on the ground that Sada Patta had not
    been filed and the appellants had not filed any receipt issued by the State of
    Bihar prior to 1977-78. Furthermore, even private respondents who were
    taking claim over the land in question, had filed rent receipt issued by the ex-
    land lord and had not filed rent issued by the State of Bihar.
    5. The order is assailed on the ground that the respondents may have
    failed to file the rent receipts, but the petitioners have filed rent receipts both
    by the ex-land lord as well as by the State of Bihar.
    6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the State that
    sufficient opportunity has been given by the settlement Court, as well as by
    the learned Commissioner, to the petitioners for adducing evidence in support
    of their claim over the suit property on the basis of Sada Patta, followed by
    actual in continuous possession. The petitioners, however, miserably failed to
    bring on record any cogent evidence regarding settlement of land, by the ex-
    landlord, return with respect to it having been filed, the rent fixation made,
    Jamabandi opened in the name of the petitioners or their predecessor in
    interest.
    7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides,
    it is apparent that there is concurrent finding by the learned Commissioner as
    well as the charge officer, wherein their claim over the land in question has
    been denied for want of any evidence. It is settled position of law that the
    settlement is a form of lease which is required to be registered in terms of
    Section 17 of the Registration Act. However, where the matter involves
    agricultural lease/settlement, an unregistered instrument of settlement
    followed by evidence of possession, has been accepted to be sufficient proof
    of settlement (Refer to Mt. Ugni v. Chowa Mahto, AIR 1968 Pat 302).
    8. In the present case, as noted in the impugned order, there is no
    evidence of settlement or any rent receipt issued by the State after the vesting
    of the intermediary interest.
    I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
    Writ petition stands dismissed. I.A., if any, is disposed of.

    (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)


    Anit

    You might also like