Kamla Devi vs The State of Jharkhand and another

Chandrashekhar, J. - Seeking a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner-Respondent No. 2 to receive rent pertaining to land comprised in Revisionary Survey Plot No. 523 under Khata No. 218, Khewat No. 10/1, Village-Bargain, District-Ranchi, the present writ petition has been filed.

Referring to Section 55(d) and various other provisions under the Chottanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is the purchaser from one Govind Sahu through a registered sale dated 06.07.2011 has been denied benefit of the said property. The Deputy Commissioner have not passed any order on the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to deposit rent for the land in question however, the respondent-authorities have declined to accept the rent. It is further submitted that the nature of land is Bhuinhari which after enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 did not vest in the State Government.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand raising preliminary objection submits that the petitioner failed to establish his right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. It is contended that the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to accept the rent for the land in question cannot be granted in the present proceeding.

A perusal of the application dated 09.05.2012 discloses that the petitioner admits that the original raiyats are either not alive and are traceless. The deed dated 06.07.2011 does not disclose how the vendor of the petitioner got title over the land in question. The petitioner is purchaser from Gobind Sahu, who himself has not executed the sale deed rather, the sale deed was executed by the constituted Attorney namely, Anamul Haque. In the sale deed there is no recital for executing power of attorney in favour of the said Anamul Haque. From the averments in application dated 09.05.2012 and the stand taken by the petitioner in the present proceeding, it is apparent that the writ petition involves a question of title of the petitioner over the land in question which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding. The provision under Section 55(d) of CNT Act is not attracted in the present case.

I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.