Bhim Singh Munda vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Appellant is aggrieved against the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2002 by which the learned

Single Judge set aside the order dated 07.07.1995, (Annexure-3) passed by the Circle Officer, Sonahatu in Uttaradhikary Case No. 121 of

1995-96 on the ground that the Circle Officer, Sonahatu had no jurisdiction in the matter to decide the question of title in respect of the claim of

Jamindari of Khewat i.e., Mundari Khunt-kattidar. It appears from the facts of the case that, in the matter of Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy,

which is a special right created by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and for which special provision with respect to the Mundari Khunt-

kattidars have been provided in the Chapter XVIII of the Act of 1908. There was dispute between the petitioner Madhu Sudan Munda (now

deceased) and the present appellant Bhim Singh Munda with respect to particular Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy for Khewat No. 4/1.

It appears that Circle Officer passed one order on 07.07.1995 in Uttradhikary Case No. 121 of 1995-96 and decided the said question of title

in favour of Madho Singh Munda and Madhusudan Singh Munda, respondent nos. 4 and 5, declaring them to be Jamindar of said Khewat No.

4/1. However, Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti on 12.10.2001 entertained an application u/s 242 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 filed by Bhim Singh

Munda (respondent no. 5 of the writ petition) wherein Sub-Divisional Officer held that for declaration of their title and the right, the proper forum is

to approach the Civil Court in view of the dispute between the parties with regard to the title and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti

refused to decide the dispute. Madhusudan Singh Munda, petitioner, approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 229 of 2002, wherein

learned Single Judge held that since the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 07.07.1995, therefore, that order is without

jurisdiction and consequentially set aside. Appellant aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2002, has, therefore,

preferred this appeal.

Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents-legal representatives of the original petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

It appears from the provisions in the C.N.T. Act, 1908 that Mundari Khunt-katti has been defined in Clause (xvi) of Section 3 of the Act of 1908

which is as under :-

(xvi) ""mundari khunt-kattidari tenancy"" means the interest of a ''Mundari khunt-kattidar''.

What is the right of Mundari Khunt-katitidari is given in Section 8 of the Act of 1908, which is as under :-

Mundari-khunt-kattidar means a Mundari, who has acquired a right to hold jungle land for the purpose of bringing suitable portions thereof under

cultivation by himself or by male members of his family, and includes,-

(a) the heir male in the male line of any such Mundari when they are in possession of such land or have any subsisting title thereto, and

(b) as regards any portions of such land which has remained continuously in the possession of any such Mundari and his descendants in the male

line, such descendants.

Therefore, the Mundari Khunt-kattidari right can be acquired which allows one to hold jungle land for the purpose of bringing suitable portions

thereof under cultivation by himself or by male members of his family and includes the male heirs of said Mundari Khunt-kattidar and which

appeal''s to be a hereditary right in view of Clause (b) of Section 8 which says that a Mundari Khunt-kattidari right as regard to any portion of such

land which has remained continuously in possession of any such Mundari Khunt-katti and his descendants in the main line, such descendants, also

are Mundari Khunt--kattidar. There are certain restrictions on transfer of Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy as has been provided in Section 240.

But Section 241 provides and allows certain transfers. If, any person encroached upon the Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy or portion thereof,

such person can be evicted u/s 242 of the Act of 1908. Mundari Khunt-kattidari tenancy gives certain rights to the persons who are known as

Khewatdars which have been given in Chapter XVIII of the C.N.T. Act, 1908. Section 245 provides for reference of question of title to Civil

Court which may arise in the course of proceeding u/s 244 and if the Deputy Commissioner holds an opinion that for proper determination, the

matter is required to be referred to the Civil Court, the Deputy Commissioner can refer such question to Principal Civil Court in the district for

determination.

As per Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, where a dispute arises involving a question relating to title in land or in interest in land, in between

the parties, the suit can be instituted before the Revenue Officer u/s 87, but it appears that this can be a suit in relation to the proceedings under

Chapter XII only which Chapter deals with the records of right and settlement of rent and Section 81(b) includes the particulars which are required

to be recorded like the Mundari Khunt-kattidar. Therefore, with respect to the correction in entry, a suit can be entertained by the Revenue Officer

only. As per Clause (viii) of Section 3, Revenue Officer under Act of 1908 means, any officer whom the State Government may appoint to

discharge any of the functions of the Deputy Commissioner. Section 251 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 bars any suit u/s 87 and says that no suit shall be

entertained u/s 87 for the decision of any dispute regarding any entry relating to a ''Mundari Khunt-kattidari ''tenancy in a record-of-rights.

Therefore, complete reading of above provisions makes it clear that civil suit with respect to the entry relating to the Mundari Khunt-kattidari

tenancy right in record-of-rights is barred. In Annexure-4, dated 11.10.2001, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti held that in view of the dispute of

title, the parties should go to the Civil Court for declaration of their title and the right which could not have been done in view of Section 251 of the

Act of 1908. However, at this place, it will be relevant to mention that Section 245 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 itself provide that if in the course of

any proceedings u/s 244, any question of title is raised, which could, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, more properly be determined by

a Civil Court, the Deputy Commissioner shall refer such question to the Principal Civil Court in the district for determination. Therefore, firstly, it is

the duty of the Revenue Officer to decide with respect to the issue relating to the entry in the record-of-rights of the Mundari Khunt-kattidari

tenancy and if, he finds a bonafide dispute between the two claimants involving question of title, then upon his reference only the Civil Court can

examine the issue of the above right. In this case, so far as Annexure-3, dated 07.07.1995, passed by the Circle Officer, Sonahatu is concerned,

that was wholly without jurisdiction whereas the learned Revenue Officer should also or could have referred the dispute to the Civil Court u/s 245

of the C.N.T. Act, 1908. But instead of doing so, he directed the parties to get their title decided through Civil Court. Learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that, in fact, the Revenue Officer has already on 23.12.2003 in favour of the appellant and, therefore, in view of the said order

dated 23.12.2003, now there is no need to send the matter either to Revenue Officer or there is no need of referring the matter to Civil Court for

adjudication.

In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set- aside the order dated

07.07.1995, annexure-3, passed by the Circle Officer, Sonahatu in Uttradhikary Case No. 121 of 1995-96. We are also of the considered view

that Sub-Divisional Officer also could have referred the matter to Civil Court for adjudication if he found that there is a bonafide dispute of title

between the parties and that has not been done. In this L.P.A., one order has been placed on record by the appellant passed by the Revenue

Officer, dated 23.12.2003 and that order was not before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, so far as this order is concerned, we are of the

considered opinion that the matter can be sent back to the Revenue Officer for consideration after giving notice to the respondents-the legal

representative of the petitioner and the Revenue Officer may also consider the order dated 23.12.2003 and may decide the matter in accordance

with law and may also, if finds the order, Annexure-1, dated 23.12.2003, to be a valid order, may proceed accordingly.

This appeal is partly allowed accordingly. A copy of this order may be produced before the concerned Revenue Officer by the appellant.