Jharkhand High Court
Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 146 of 2018
---------
Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd., a Company duly incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
through its Director, namely, Prem Rajesh Soy, Son
of Late Sanika Soy, resident of village Hinoo, P.O. &
P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi, having its office at New
Collectorate Building, Kutchery Road, P.O., G.P.O.,
P.S. Kotwali, Town & District Ranchi.
2.Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, having its
office at New Collectorate Building, Kutchery Road,
P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Town & District Ranchi.
..... Defendants/Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr.Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate
: Mr. Bibhas Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr.P.K. Akhouri, S.C.(Mines)
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V.
The present appeal has been filed on
behalf of the appellant- Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd. through its
Director- Prem Rajesh Soy by challenging the judgment
dated 26.02.2018 and decree dated 05.03.2018, passed
by Shri Niraj Kumar Vishwakarma, then learned Civil
Judge (Sr. Division) No. I, by which the Original Suit
No. 519 of 2010 has been dismissed.
2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed Original Suit
No. 519 of 2010 for grant of the following relief/reliefs.
1
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(i) On adjudication a decree be passed that suit
property belonging to plaintiff having
chhaperbandi right and plaintiff being a lawful
owner is entitled to get receipt of
chhaperbandi lagan from State.
(ii) Cost of suit be awarded to Plaintiff.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs which Your Honour
may deem fit and proper be awarded to the
plaintiff.
3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) The R.S. Plot No. 1361, 1348, 1341 under Khata
No.57 and 1336 and 1340 under Khata No. 59 and
174 respectively measuring an area 2.15 acres and
the building standing thereon, situated at village-
Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225, District
Ranchi is the subject matter of the instant suit,
herein after referred to as suit property for the
sake of brevity.
(ii) That the Plaintiff is seized and possessed or
otherwise sufficiently entitled to the land and
building, having chhaperbandi right, aforesaid and
also described in schedule below with absolute
right, title and interest.
(iii) That as a matter of fact the Director of
M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd is the member of
schedule tribe. The land having chhaperbandi right
has been acquired by the Company in the manner
as set out in succeeding paragraphs.
2
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(iv) That a piece & parcel of land appertaining
to R.S. plot nos. 1336 & 1361 measuring an area
42 decimal and 6 decimal respectively under Khata
no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda,
Thana no. 225 was purchased by Mrs. Sandhya
Kujur, sister of the Director of company vide a
registered deed of sale being no. 8554 particulars
of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1,
page nos. 264 to 276 in the office of District Sub-
Registrar, Ranchi.
(v) That likewise a piece & parcel of land
appertaining to R.S. plot no. 1361 measuring an
area 48 decimal under Khata no. 57 situated at
village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225 was
purchased by Mrs. Usha Kachhap, sister of the
Director of company vide a registered deed of sale
dated 06.10.1982 particulars of which have been
duly entered in Book no. 1, Page Nos. 133 to 179
in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi.
(vi) That in the same manner the Director of
company namely, Prem Rajesh Soy also purchased
a piece & parcel of land appertaining to R.S. plot
no. 1361 measuring an area 48 decimal under
Khata no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S.
Doranda, Thana no. 225 vide a registered deed of
sale, being no. 8555 particulars of which have
been duly entered in Book no. 1, page nos. 277 to
289 in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi.
3
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(vii) That the father of Prem Rajesh Soy had
also purchased a piece & parcel of land
appertaining to R.S. plot nos. 1348 & 1361
measuring an area 6 decimal and 42 decimal
respectively under khata no. 57 situated at village-
Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225 vide a
registered deed of sale being no. 8556 particulars
of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1,
page nos. 323 to 334 in the office of District Sub-
Registrar, Ranchi.
(viii) That all the purchasers, named above,
were having their respective lands contagious and
adjacent forming one block of land.
(ix) That all the purchasers had decided to
commence a business of Hotel, Motel and
Restaurant etc. under the name and style of M/s
Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant on partnership
basis. After due discussion and negotiation, the
purchasers named above have reduced the terms
orally agreed upon into writing in a properly drawn
deed of partnership dated 06.10.1982. Pertinent to
mention here that the property aforesaid was never
used for agricultural purpose as it had already lost
its fertility just after publication of record of right
1935. The owners therefore had decided to
commence a business of hotel and Restaurant
thereon.
(x) That the purchasers have contributed
their respective lands towards their capital
4
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
contribution into the partnership business in
accordance with the terms as set out in the deed of
partnership dated 06.10.1982.
(xi) That the partners of M/s Adivashi Hotel
and Restaurant had subsequently added the
Plaintiff (a juristic person) as one of the partners
for smooth running of the partnership business
and accordingly another deed of partnership on
account of subsequent event was drawn up on
13.10.1983. which was duly signed and executed
by the Director of company and his father and
sisters including Mr. Sanika Milan Soy, who is now
no more in the world.
(xii) That the land held and possessed by the
partnership firm was not adequate and sufficient
for the purpose of construction of building for hotel
and restaurant, hence, they jointly approached Dr.
Bahalen Bodra, daughter of Late John Bodra to
join them into the partnership business and
contribute her piece of land of R.S. Plot No. 1340
and 1341 measuring an area 20 decimals and 03
decimals respectively which is adjacent to the plots
of the partnership firm.
(xiii) That the said Dr. Bahalen Bodra
voluntarily agreed to become partner of M/s
Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant and she
contributed the land belonging to her as her
contribution towards her capital contribution and
on account of subsequent development another
5
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
deed of partnership was duly executed between her
and the remaining partners of M/s Adivashi Hotel
and Restaurant on 05.07.1984.
(xiv) That on 04.09.1984 the said partnership
firm, namely, M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant
was dissolved in terms of execution of a deed of
dissolution of partnership duly signed by all of
them and according to the terms and conditions of
the deed of dissolution of partnership the Plaintiff
took over all the assets and liabilities of the said
firm including all its moveable and immoveable
properties and paid off the share of each and every
partner of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant.
(xv) That relevant to place on record that the
Director of company also happened to be one of the
partners of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant
and after dissolution of the partnership all assets
and liabilities of the firm were taken over by
Plaintiff and accordingly the company became
owner of the lands mentioned herein above and
started enjoying their rights as lawful owner of the
same. The company (Plaintiff) is a juristic person in
the eye of law, who got their name mutated in the
office of Town Anchal Ranchi vide Mutation Case
No. 99R27/87-88 vide order dated 10.06.1987.
The company also got their name entered in the
office of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi,
and started paying rent/taxes to the State.
6
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(xvi) That at the time of the dissolution of
the firm, the Plaintiff took over all the assets and
liabilities of the firm and also became custodian of
title deeds of the property aforesaid and all other
relevant documents relating to the business affairs
of the partnership firm.
(xvii) That M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director became absolute owner of the
land and building aforesaid on the date of
dissolution of partnership firm. The then owner of
the respective piece of land as mentioned
hereinabove became the Benamidar and upon
request of the company it was thought expedient
by all of them to relinquish their rights from the
property aforesaid in accordance with the provision
of law.
(xviii) That all the purchasers whose names
have been mentioned above, have separately
executed deed of relinquishment/release in favour
of M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd., (Plaintiff) A Company
duly incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at Birsa Chowk, Khunti
Road, P.O. Hinoo, District- Ranchi. Altogether 5
deeds of relinquishment being deed nos. 7930 to
7934 were executed on 18.09.1987 which was duly
registered in the office of District Sub-Registrar,
Ranchi. The Plaintiff on the basis of above got his
name entered in Register II. The defendant no.2
after due verification allowed mutation in the name
7
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
of plaintiff and since then rent is being paid by the
plaintiff to the State.
(xix) That it is manifest that M/S Hotel
Birsa Pvt. Ltd., A Company duly incorporated
under The Companies Act, 1956 having its
registered office at Birsa Chowk, Khunti Road, P.O.
Hinoo, District- Ranchi is the lawful owner of the
property aforesaid and the same is being possessed
by the company under the supervision and care of
the petitioner (Member of schedule tribe) with
absolute right, title and interest. The suit property
has not been used for agriculture purpose since
last several decades and nature of land has been
converted into chhaperbandi by way of its use.
(xx) That the sisters and father of Prem
Rajesh Soy (Director of company) also happened to
be the Directors of M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd. The
sisters of the Director of company have tendered
their resignation on 20.04.1995 which was
accepted by the Company and accordingly the
Registrar of Companies was informed in prescribed
Form No.32 dated 15.05.1995.
(xxi) That the business of the company is
being run under guidance and supervision of
Director of company and he is a member of-
schedule tribe and all efforts have been made by
him to commence a business of Hotel and
Restaurant. The land, on which the building has
been constructed, has not been used for
8
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
agriculture purpose since last several decades and
same is out of the ambit of raiyati holding as
defined under section 6 of the CNT Act. Nature of
land became chhaperbandi and plaintiff is entitled
to pay chhaperbandi lagan/rent to the State.
(xxii) That in view of above the plaintiff has
requested the Defendant No. 2 to accept
chhaperbandi lagan/rent for the suit property but
the Defendant No.2 has refused to issue rent
receipt by showing nature of land as chhaperbandi.
(xxiii) That revisional survey was made and
record of right was finally published in the year
1935 and thereafter no survey in the Hinoo Mauja
has been made. The assumption of Defendant No.2
based on record of right has got no legal sanctity
for ascertaining nature of land as raiyati one in
view of the fact that various changes have been
made or developments have taken place in mauza
Hinoo. There was no multistoried building in the
said vicinity when last survey was made but now
the scenario has completely changed. The
definition of Raiyat as defined under section 6 of
CNT Act makes it clear that Raiyat means
primarily a person who has acquired the land for
the purpose of cultivation. The land aforesaid is
not being used for agricultural purpose, therefore,
the status and character of the land would always
be deemed to be chhaperbandi.
9
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(xxiv) That the Plaintiff being aggrieved
with the act of Defendant No. 2 has sent a notice
under section 80 of The Code of Civil Procedure to
the Defendant No.1 and copy of same was also
sent to Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff by sending
the said notice to the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi sought for a relief that Defendant No.2 be
directed to realize chhaperbandi rent/lagan of the
suit property in view of fact that nature of land has
been converted into chhaperbandi by way of its
use, hence the present suit has been filed.
4. The schedule of the land has been
mentioned in the plaint, which is as follows:-
SCHEDULE
All that piece & parcel of land and building
standing over R.S. Plot No.s 1361, 1348, 1341
under Khata No. 57, Plot No. 1336 and 1340
under Khata No.59 and 174 respectively an area
2.15 acres, situated at village-Hinoo, P.S.
Doranda, Thana No. 225, District-Ranchi.
5. However, the Defendants had not filed
the Written Statement as the Defendants were debarred
from filing the Written Statement vide order dated
12.09.2011 by the learned Court below by observing
that Defendants have received the Notice on 10.06.2011
but they did not file Written Statement within statutory
period of limitation.
6. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed
amendment petition on 21.05.2012 for amending the
10
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
plaint, which was allowed by the learned Court below
vide order dated 06.07.2012/07.07.2012 and the
plaintiffs prayed to incorporate the amendment.
7. It is evident from Para 8 of the impugned
judgment that as there was no Written Statement filed
on behalf of the Defendants and hence, no proper issue
was framed by the learned Court below, however, the
learned Court below observed that it is the duty of the
Court to see whether the suit is maintainable in the eye
of law and whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of
action for the suit or not and the above questions were
dealt with and decided at Para 9 and Para 10 of the
impugned judgment.
8. The Plaintiff-Appellant, in support of his
case, got examined Six (06) witnesses, who are as
follows:-
(i) P.W.1 is Mahendra Kumar Singh,
(ii) P.W.2 is Jultan Emmanuel Demta,
(iii) P.W.3 is Deepak Choubey,
(iv) P.W.4 is Mannu Jautga,
(v) P.W.5 is Prem Rajesh Soy, i.e. the plaintiff and
(vi) P.W.6 is Asif Ziya.
9. The plaintiff-appellant, in support of
his case, got marked certain documents, which are as
follows:-
(i) Exhibit 1 is the certified copy of correction slip,
(ii) Exhibit-2 is the certified copy of order of Mutation
Case no.99R27/87-88,
(iii) Exhibit-3 is the Government rent receipt,
(iv) Exhibit-4 is the Legal notice under section 80 of
C.P.C.,11
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(v) Exhibit 5 to 5/a are two postal receipts,
(vi) Exhibit-6 is Sale deed no.8554 dated 06.10.1982,
(vii) Exhibit 7 is the Sale deed no.8557 dated 04.07.1982,
(viii) Exhibit-8 is the Sale deed no.8457 dated
06.10.1982,
(ix) Exhibit-9 is the Deed of partnership dated
06.10.1982,
(x) Exhibit-10 is the Deed of partnership dated
05.07.1984,
(xi) Exhibit-11 is certified copy of map of case no.593/07
of RRDA, Ranchi,
(xii) Exhibit-12 is the No dues certificate dated
22.03.2005,
(xiii) Exhibit-13 is the Letter of RRDA dated 22.03.2005,
(xiv) Exhibit-14 is the Letter no.1144 dated 23.06.2010
issued by the Circle Officer.
10. Although, the Defendants had not filed
any Written Statement, however, the Court had allowed
them to produce oral and documentary evidence.
11. Defendants-Respondents examined one
witness, namely Md. Firoj Khan as D.W.1
12. The Defendants-Respondents, in support
of their case, got marked one document as Exhibit-A,
which is a certified copy of Register-II, Volume IX, Page
No. 188 of Village Hinoo.
13. Thereafter, the learned Court below
recorded its finding by deciding the Issue No.II and also
by deciding repeated Issue No. II (It appears that first
Issue No. II should be Issue No.I, whereas repeated
Issue No.II should be Issue No.II as framed by the
learned Court below.)
12
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
14. Thereafter, the learned Court below has
dismissed the suit by holding that there is no cause of
action for filing the suit and learned Court below has
further held that the suit is not maintainable in the
Civil Court because there was no lis as the Defendants
have never demanded rent but the plaintiff forcibly
wants to give it and the learned Court below has further
held that the suit is barred under Section 258 of the
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
15. Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of State-Respondents.
16. learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary
and not sustainable in law.
It is submitted that the learned Court
below has committed grave illegality by dismissing the
suit on the ground of no cause of action on behalf of the
plaintiff for filing the suit.
It is further submitted that the learned
Court below has wrongly observed that the suit is a
premature suit and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction
to try the suit. It is further submitted that the learned
Court below has committed grave illegality by observing
that the suit is barred under Section 258 of
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (Hereinafter to be referred to
as C.N.T. Act).
13
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
It is submitted that the plaintiff is the
Director of Hotel Birsa Private Limited, which is well
known in Ranchi and is situated at the heart of town in
a commercial place since last several decades and
which is not situated in any agricultural land.
It is submitted that plaintiff had examined
Six (06) witnesses in support of his case including
himself as P.W.5 and all the witnesses have fully
supported the case of the plaintiff and it clearly stated
that the plaintiff is running the hotel in the name of
Hotel Birsa Private Limited since last several years and
which has not been denied by the respondents also.
The plaintiff -appellant, in support of his
case, got proved several documents marked as Ext. 1 to
Ext.14.
It is submitted that even the Map of Hotel
has been passed by the R.R.D.A., which has been
marked as Ext.11. Even R.R.D.A. has issued no dues
certificate vide letter dated 22.03.2005, which is
marked as Ext.12. Further another letter dated
22.03.2005 has also been issued by the R.R.D.A.
marked as Ext. 13, whereas Circle Officer, vide Letter
dated 23.06.2010 has committed illegality by rejecting
the claim of the plaintiff-appellant.
It is submitted that the plaintiff had
approached the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for
a declaration that his property, which was originally
recorded as a rayati land has now lost its nature as an
14
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
agricultural land and has become chapparbandi by
nature.
It is submitted that Section 9 of C.P.C.
provides that Civil Court shall try Civil Suits unless
barred. Therefore, it is evident that since there is no bar
for instituting a suit for declaration of nature of land
under the CNT Act, the Civil Court is competent to
entertain any suit claiming any declaration which is
legally sustainable.
It is submitted that merely not demanding
of chapparbandi rent by the State shall not render a
suit as not maintainable and the plaintiff is always
entitled to get a positive declaration by a civil court.
It is submitted that the learned Court
below has wrongly observed that Exhibit-14, i.e. letter
No. 1144 dated 23.06.2010, issued by the Circle Officer
by which it was expressed that the Circle Officer was
not competent to declare the nature of land, was an
appealable order and the plaintiff could have preferred
an appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector or
Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Commissioner or
the Commissioner of Land and Revenue. It is submitted
that the learned court below has misinterpreted the
document marked as Exhibit-14, which was a reply to
an application under the RTI Act and secondly the
learned Court below did not specify the provision of law
under which and the authority before whom the appeal
could have been preferred. Thus, the finding in
15
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
Paragraph No. 9 of the impugned judgment to that
extent is completely vague and baseless.
It is submitted that even further the
learned court below has wrongly held that power to
declare a land as chapparbandi vests with the Khas
Mahal authority under section 2(9) of the Khas Mahal
Manual. It is submitted that the suit property is a
private property and thus not covered under the Khas
Mahal Manual and secondly, there is no provision like
section 2(9) in the Khas Mahal Manual and as such the
finding to that effect is wholly absurd.
It is submitted that the State Government
has neither brought on record any document nor has
emphasized any particular provision of law under which
such a declaration can be made.
It is submitted that it has been time and
again observed by the Jharkhand High Court that
change of nature of land by its usage is permissible and
once the nature of a raiyati land is lost, no provision
concerning a raiyati land shall apply to it.
It is submitted that the learned court
below was competent enough to make a declaration as
sought for by the plaintiff and moreover, making such
declaration would not cause any harm to either of the
parties or in general as well.
17. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in
support of his contention has relied upon the
judgments reported in the following cases:
16
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
(i) Murlidhar Gupta and Ors. V. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (1988) 36 BLJR 152
(ii) Kamal Khess and Anr. V. State of
Jharkhand and Ors., reported in (2011) 4 AIR
Jhar R 138.
It is submitted that having lost its raiyati
nature, the suit is fit to be declared as a non-
agricultural /chapparbandi land and hence, the appeal
may be allowed and the suit may be decreed.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that
impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018, in Original Suit
No. 519 of 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Division) No.I, Ranchi is proper and no interference is
required from this Court. It is submitted that the suit
filed by the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable
before the Civil Court, Ranchi and as such the learned
Court below has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff-appellant. It is submitted that the learned
Court below has rightly held that the permission
granted from R.R.D.A. does not change the nature of
the land because R.R.D.A. is not a State and even in the
matter of grant of chapparbandi rent, the State has to
realize it and not by the R.R.D.A. It is submitted that
there is no incident of surrender of land by any
Jamindar. It is submitted that the plaintiff is trying to
circumvent the provisions of C.N.T. Act and has created
sale deeds and partnership deed for the purpose of
deviating the case from the main issues.
17
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
It is further submitted that there is no
provision in C.N.T. Act for conversion of nature of land
as chapparbandi land and thus, the suit filed by the
plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable.
19. It is further submitted that the Section 85
of the C.N.T. Act authorizes the Revenue Officer for
settlement of rent after the survey is conducted.
It is submitted that the State cannot
change the nature of land on its own or suo-motu.
20. It is further submitted that the Civil Court
has no power to change the nature of land on the basis
of original title suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.
It is submitted that similar question arose
before the Patna High Court with regard to change in
nature of Agricultural land and the Hon’ble Patna High
Court has held in the case of Din Dayal Ram V.
Ramzan Mistri reported in AIR 1946 Pat 466 that
nature of land cannot be changed.
It is submitted that even the record from
the Department reveals that land of Khata No. 57, 59
and 174 of RS Khatiyan is recorded in the name of
Junus Munda and Hanku Munda, both sons of Chamu
Munda and the land has been mutated in the name of
Birsa Hotel Private Limited and Ext. 2 is the copy of
Register-II with regard to the land in question.
It is further submitted that the Circle
Officer has no right for declaration of chapparbandi
rent.
18
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
It is submitted that the plaintiff-appellant has
filed the suit only to deviate from the provisions of
C.N.T. Act and only to escape from the stringent
provisions of C.N.T. Act by approaching a different path.
It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.5, i.e.
the Plaintiff-Appellant-Prem Rajesh Soy, is nothing but
to mislead the learned Court below by claiming that the
land in question is chapparbandi. It is submitted that
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely
Mahendra Kumar Singh, Jultan Emmanuel Demta,
Deepak Choubey and Mannu Jautga, are not reliable,
hence this First Appeal may be dismissed.
21. Perused the Lower Court Records and
considered the submission of both the sides.
22. It transpires that the plaintiff-appellant
had filed the Original Suit No. 519 of 2010 for passing a
decree that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff is
having chapparbandi right and the plaintiff-appellant
being a lawful owner is entitled to get the rent receipt of
chapparbandi lagan from the State and the cost of the
suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
23. From the pleadings made in the plaint, it
would appear that by virtue of sale deeds dated
06.10.1982, 04.07.1982 and 06.10.1982, marked as
Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 respectively and also by virtue
of Ext.9 and Ext.10, which are deeds of partnership
dated 06.10.1982 and 05.07.1984 respectively, the
plaintiff is running M/s Hotel Birsa Private Limited
since the year 1984 on his own as the earlier Directors,
19
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
namely Sandhya Kujur, Usha Kachhap and one Dr.
Bahalene Bodra has relinquished their respective
shares in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant. It is further
evident that even the map of the Hotel has been passed
by Ranchi Rural Development Authority (i.e. R.R.D.A.),
which is marked as Ext.11. The R.R.D.A. has even
issued No-dues certificate vide letter dated 22.03.2005,
marked as Ext.12.
Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff is
running M/s Birsa Hotel Pvt. Limited as the Proprietor-
cum-Director of the said suit property.
24. The plaintiff had examined six witnesses
in support of his case and has got proved various
documents as Exhibits, which have been mentioned in
Paragraph 8 and 9 of this judgment.
25. It further reveals that although the
defendant-respondent (i.e. the State) had not filed any
document, but they had produced and got examined
one witness, namely Md. Firoz Khan as D.W.1 and they
also got proved the certified copy of Register-II, Volume-
IX, Page 188 of Village Hinoo as Ext. A.
26. It reveals from the judgment that the
learned Court below has observed that no written
statement was filed on behalf of the State-Defendant-
Respondent and hence, no proper issue could be
framed, however, it is the duty of the Court to see
whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law and
whether the plaintiffs had got any valid cause of action
for the suit or not ?
20
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
27. The learned Court below has decided as to
whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law as
Issue No.I and has decided the Issue No.II in the form
as to whether the Plaintiffs have got any valid cause of
action for the suit or not?
28. The learned Court below has discussed
the evidence of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses in brief
examined as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and
P.W.6, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Jultan
Emmanuel Demta, Deepak Choubey, Mannu Jautga,
Prem Rajesh Soy, Asif Ziya respectively and has held
that there is no iota of evidence to show that the land of
the Plaintiff-Appellant has become chapparbandi and
even though the Plaintiff is running hotel with the
permission of R.R.D.A. for a long period, but that does
not change the nature of the land as the State has no
where given consent.
29. The learned Court below further held that
it is for the Executive Authority to decide the change of
nature of the suit land. However, the plaintiff has filed
the suit mainly on the ground that the Circle Officer
has rejected his claim by observing that nature of the
land can be decided by the competent Civil Court, but
passing of an order by the Circle Officer does not give a
cause of action to file the suit because the Circle Officer
has no authority to direct the Civil Court to decide a
particular question of Chapparbandi land with regard to
any suit plot.
21
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
30. From perusal of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3
and P.W.4, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Deepak
Choubey and Mannu Jautga, it would appear that they
have supported the case of the plaintiff-appellant by
stating that the land in question as described in the
Schedule of the plaint is situated near Ranchi Over
Bridge. A Hotel has been constructed and the plaintiff-
appellant is the owner, running the said hotel. They
have also described that the said suit land was
purchased by the registered deed dated 06.10.1982 by
Usha Kachhap (sister of Director of the Hotel) from Biraj
Munda and others on 04.07.1982 and thereafter, the
said land was purchased by the plaintiff Rajesh Soy by
another registered sale deed dated 06.10.1982 from
Biraj Munda and others and all the possessors have
jointly started the business in the name of M/s
Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant. Thereafter both the
purchasers have made a partnership agreement dated
06.10.1982. They have stated that from the date of
purchase the said land was neither an agricultural land
nor any agricultural activity was done on the said piece
of land. The Adivashi Hotel was being run by the
plaintiff and his sisters in jointness. Thereafter, they
started running the business in the name of Hotel Birsa
Private Ltd. However, later on sisters of the plaintiff-
appellant relinquished their right in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant and since then the plaintiff is
running the hotel as its Director. They had not seen any
agricultural work over this disputed land and even in
22
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
the master plan, this land is not recorded for the
purpose of agriculture. Hence, the Plaintiff has rightly
requested from the respondent State to furnish him
chapparbandi lagan.
31. So far as evidence of P.W.2, namely
Jultan Emmanuel Demta, is concerned, he has also
supported the case of the plaintiff-appellant and stated
the same facts as stated by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4,
namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Deepak Choubey and
Mannu Jautga. However, he has further proved the
documents marked as Ext. 1 and Ext.2, which are the
order of mutation passed on 21.05.1987 and
10.05.1987 respectively. He further proved the rent
receipt as Ext. 3. He has further proved the Notice sent
under Section 80 C.P.C., marked as Ext.4. He has
further proved the receipt of the registered Notice,
marked as Ext.5.
Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and P.W.6, namely
Mahendra Kumar Singh, Jultan Emmanuel Demta,
Deepak Choubey, Mannu Jautga, Asif Ziya respectively,
it is evident that even at the time of execution of the
sale deed dated 06.10.1982, i.e. Ext.6 and its mutation
order and rent receipt, as Ext.2 and Ext. 3 respectively,
the plaintiff and his witnesses were aware of the fact
that the suit land was not registered for giving
chapparbandi rent although initially they were running
Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant and which was later on
renamed as M/s Hotel Birsa Bihar Pvt. Ltd. and there
23
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
was no whisper on the side of the plaintiff to raise the
issue of chapparbandi rent at that time.
32. So far as evidence of plaintiff-appellant,
i.e. P.W.5 is concerned, it reveals that he has proved the
sale deeds dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982 and
06.10.1982, executed by Biraj Munda and others in
favour of Sandhya Kujur and Usha Kachhap, i.e. sisters
of the plaintiff and in the name of the plaintiff Prem
Rajesh Soy over the suit properties, i.e. Ext. 6, Ext. 7
and Ext. 8. He also stated that he prepared deed of
partnership in association with his sisters on
06.10.1982 and further on 05.07.1984, which has been
marked as Ext. 9 and Ext.10 respectively and they
started running the hotel in the name of Adivasi Hotel
and Restaurant in jointness. Later on, he got the
mutation of the disputed land in the name of M/s Birsa
Hotel Private Limited and is paying rent to Ranchi
Anchal. He has proved the map of the hotel issued by
the R.R.D.A. marked as Ext.11. He also stated that after
returning the entire debt amount he has been issued no
dues certificate from Bihar State Credit & Investigation
Corporation Ltd. on 05.09.2005, which is marked as
Ext. 12 showing no liability or debt upon the Hotel. He
further proved the Letter dated 22.03.2005, issued by
R.R.D.A., marked as Ext. 13.
33. He further stated that he had applied
before the Anchal Adhikari Town for issuance of
chapparbandi Lagan/Rent, but the Anchal Adhikari
rejected his claim vide order dated 23.06.2010 marked
24
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
as Ext.14. Thereafter, he sent legal notice to the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi and the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi
Town, but no reply was received.
34. During cross-examination he admitted to
running the hotel business for the last 35 years. He
claimed to have obtained permission for himself and his
sisters also claimed permission and issued permission
under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act for transferring the
land. He admitted to have obtained map from the R.R.D.A.
before constructing the hotel. He has also informed about
the relinquishment of right of his sisters before the
Registrar of Company. He further stated that he had filed
the civil suit only after rejection of his application by the
Circle Officer.
35. From scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 5,
i.e. Plaintiff-appellant, it is evident that he was well aware
of the fact at the time of execution of the sale deed dated
06.10.1982 in his name and in the name of his sisters,
namely Usha Kachhap and Sandhya Kachhap, no
Chapparbandi rent was fixed.
36. It transpires that Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 are
the Sale Deeds dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982, 06.10.1982
respectively, from perusal of which it reveals that the land
in question has been described as the agricultural land
and Parti-Tanr land. It also reveals that although the
deeds of partnership dated 06.10.1982 and 05.07.1984
were marked as Ext. 9 and Ext.10 respectively, however,
during cross-examination, the Plaintiff-Appellant has
stated that the earlier Directors, namely Sandhya
Kujur, Usha Kachhap and one Dr. Bahalen Bodra,
25
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
daughter of Late John Bodra had relinquished their
share in the suit property in the year 1994 in favour of
the Plaintiff-Appellant.
37. It further appears that the Plaintiff-
Appellant has asserted in the plaint that altogether
Five deeds of relinquishment being deed no.s 7930 to
7934 were executed on 18.09.1987, which were duly
registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi,
however, the said documents have not been brought
on record by the plaintiff.
38. It further reveals from the impugned
judgment that the Circle Officer, Ranchi, vide order
dated 23.06.2010 has rejected the claim of the
plaintiff-appellant for issuance of receipt of
chapparbandi rent and even at the time of passing of
map by R.R.D.A. the nature of land was not shown as
chapparbandi land, however, he has filed the suit on
the observation of the Circle Officer to move before the
competent Civil Court.
39. The word chapparbandi is explained in
the Tylor’s report of 1935 as follows:-
“95.Chapparbandi rents.- Although house
and homestead plots are not included in the rent of
agricultural holdings, there are cases where a
chapparbandi rent or house tax has been separately
assessed on them. These cases fall into two classes:-
(a) Where the house and homestead plots are
connected with agriculture. In these cases they
may form part of an agricultural holding, or more26
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )usually are occupied by a tenant who previously
had an agricultural holding but who has
subsequently lost it; or else they are occupied by
an agricultural labourer who holds them for
agricultural purposes. In such cases if an
agricultural holding still existed the plots and the
chapparbandi payable for them were entered in
the same Khata with it; if there was no
agricultural holding the plots and the
chapparbandi rent were entered in separate
Kaemi, dakhalkar, or gairdakhalkar khatas
according to the status of the tenant. The
restrictions on transfer imposed by section 46
apply to such plots as they are agricultural
lands.
(b) Where the house and homestead plots are
held by an agricultural tenant but not as part of
his agricultural holding, or where they are
occupied for non-agricultural purposes. In such
cases the plots and the chapparbandi rent paid
for them were entered in separate makan-bari
status khatians in the tenant’s name if there was
a bari or, if not in the landlord’s gairmazrua
Khatians with the note of the name of the tenant
in possession. The restriction of section 46, Chota
Nagpur Tenancy Act, on transfer do not apply to
these plots as they are not rayati-holdings. A
great many house and homestead plots of this
kind are found in and near the bigger towns.
27
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
Many raiyats attempted to evade the restrictions
of Section 46, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, by
paying salami to the landlords to convert portions
of their raiyati holdings into chapparbandi
holdings of this type.”
40. It has been held in the case of Murlidhar
Gupta and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand, reported in
(1988) 36 BLJR 152, at Para 10 as follows:-
“Para 10:-………………….It might have
been acquired once upon a time for cultivation but
if it is being used consistently for residence
unconnected with agricultural operation, the
losing of the character of the land is permissible
in law, particularly when there is no provision
and no procedure for obtaining an order from
authorities that the land has lost its original
character-Dindayal Ram v. Ramzan Mistri A.I.R.
1946 Pat 466…………………..”
41. It has been held in the case of Kamal
Khess and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors.,
reported in (2011) 4 AIR Jhar R 138 at Para 6 as
follows:-
“Para 6:- Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, I perused the impugned order passed by
the Divisional Commissioner. The order is elaborate
and runs in 33 pages. Learned Commissioner has
thoroughly discussed every aspect of the case. He
has dealt with the facts, evidences and relevant
provisions of law in detail and has recorded its28
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )conclusion in Para 11, which is reproduced herein
below:-
“11. It is an admitted fact that the lands in
question are recorded in the name of ancestors of
the petitioners and the description of the land in
column 6 has been mentioned as Makan
Kuchcha Khaparposh Main Angan Woh Hata in
the Municipal Survey records of right. Therefore,
it is clear that there was Kuchcha house with
Courtyard surrounded by boundary wall. The
O.P. has filed the certified copy of assessment list
of Ranchi. Municipality for the year 1930-31,
certified copy of the assessment list of Ranchi
Municipality for the year 1945-46 and certified
copy of the assessment list of the Ranchi
Municipality for the year 1960-61. From the
perusal of these assessment lists, it is clear that
the description of the holding has been shown as
Kachcha Makan with compound in the
assessment list of 1930-31 and 1945-46 while
the assessment list of 1960-61, the description of
the holding has been mentioned as K.T. Long
barrack 10 rooms and in all the three cases, the
rent has been assessed as Chhaparbandi rent.
The Sale deed of the year 1963 mentioned this
land as Chhaparbandi. Similarly, sale deed
dated 9-8-1972, the Kachcha house with tiled
roof has been mentioned. In the mutation case
No. 647 of 1962-63, the lands in question have29
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )been mentioned as Chhaparbandi in the petition
filed by Sushana Khess before the learned
D.C.L.R. Ranchi. In case No. 40 of 1973, the
Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi has
mentioned in his report that the lands in question
are Chhaparbandi. In view of these documents, it
is clearly established that the lands in question
have never been used for agricultural purposes at
least since 1929. It has been held by the Hon ble
High Court that there is no provision and
procedure for changing the character of the land
in the C.N.T. Act and character of the land could
be lost by its user which is permissible under
law. It has also been held by the Hon’ble High
Court in a number of decisions that if the land is
Chhaparbandi no proceeding u/S. 71A of the
C.N.T. Act can be initiated for the restoration of
that land. The learned advocate on behalf of the
O.P. has relied upon the rulings on this point and
these rulings have been mentioned earlier in this
oriters has boon also held by the Hon’ble High
Court in the ruling reported in AIR 1935 Pa 105
that if the land is surrounded by the compound
wall and there is a shop inside i the provisions of
the CNT. Act are not applicable. This decision has
also been retied upon by the Hon’ble High Court
in the present case reported in 1987 BLT page
305 the present case, the lands in question are
recorded as Kachcha Makan Khaparpoon Nai30
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )Angan Woh Hata which clearly means that there
is a house with Courtyard surrounded by
compound wall. Thus, according to the ruling
reported in AIR 1935 Pat 105 the provisions of
the CN.T. Apt are not applicable in this case.
Apart from the documents produced by the O.P.,
the teamed lower Courts have also examined the
witnesses who have confirmed that the lands in
question Have never been used for the
agricultural purposes since at least about 70
years. The Hon’ble High Court while remanding
the case has specially directed to record the
finding whether the lands in question are
agricultural lands or non-agricultural lands. It is
very much clear from the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court that if the lands in question are non-
agricultural in nature, the provisions of Section
71A of the C.N.T. Act will not be applicable. The
learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners has
tried to distinguish between Chhawarbandi land,
homestead land and agricultural as well as non
agricultural lands. the has taken shelter of
Taylor’s Report and on the basis of the Taylor’s
report, he has mentioned that Chhaparbandi is
not a character of land, but it is kind of rent. It
may be mentioned that the word Chhaparbandi
has not been defined in the CN.T. Act, but is
common parlance the word Chhaparbandi is
used for fands covered with house and31
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )homestead and Chhaparbandi lands are treated
similar lands. In the present case, the lands in
question are recorded as Kachcha Makan
Khaparposh with Courtyard and compound wall.
These are certainly Chhaparbandi lands. There
may be a doubt whether non agricultural lands
can be treated as Chhaparbandi lands but in this
case no suen doubt arises in view of series of
documents produced by the O.P. It can clearly be
said that all non agricultural lands may not be
Chhaparbandi but all Chhaparbandi lands are
certainly non agricultural lands. Therefore the
learned lower Courts have rightly held that the
lands in question in the present case are
Chhaparbandi lands and in view of catena of
decisions of our Hon’ble High Court referred to
above, the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T.
Act will not be applicable. There has been no
denial from the petitioners about the execution of
various registered sale deeds and therefore there
is no need to go into this aspect. The ruling
mentioned by the learned advocate on behalf of
the petitioners as reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC
77: AIR 1992 SC 195 is not applicable in this
case. In the aforesaid ruling, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was concerned with the term
transfer used in Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act and
it has got no application in the present case.””
32
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
42. It is pertinent to mention here that the
judgment passed in the case of Kamal Khess and
Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in
(2011) 4 AIR Jhar R 138 is not applicable in this case
because in the above case the nature of land was
recorded as chapparbandi land at the time of
execution of the sale deed, at the time of assessment
list of Ranchi Municipality in the year 1930-31 and in
the year 1945-46 and also in the year 1960-61
respectively.
Even in the said Sale deed dated
09.08.1972 the land in question was mentioned as
Chapparbandi, however, in the present case the
nature of land was recorded as Parti Tanr.
Apart from this, the said case is related
to restoration of possession in respect of
Chapparbandi land in question under the provisions of
Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, which is not the case
here.
Thus, the above judgment is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
43. So far as judgment passed in the case of
Murlidhar Gupta and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand,
reported in (1988) 36 BLJR 152 is concerned, the
same is also not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case in view of the fact that the
above case relates to restoration of possession under
Section 71 – A of the C.N.T. Act and even the land in
33
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
question has been recorded as Chapparbandi land,
which is not the case of the plaintiff.
Thus, this case is also not applicable on
the facts and in the circumstances of the present case.
44. The provisions of C.N.T. Act prescribed
certain acts to be adopted by the Revenue authorities.
The plaintiff claimed to have obtained the permission
of the D.C., Ranchi under Section 46 of the Act before
execution of the sale deed in the name of Plaintiff-
appellant and his sisters Usha and Sandhya and the
nature of land as it reveals from the sale deeds marked
as Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext. 8 is mentioned as Parti
Tanr/Raiyati land having Raiyati rights and not
chapparbandi land and the suit property were the
ancestral lands of the vendors namely Biraj Munda,
Daud Munda, Hanuk Munda, Junus Munda, Bishram
Munda, Martin Munda, Hardugan Munda, Marshal
Munda and Mahanand Munda respectively.
45. In view of the discussion of evidence of
parties, both oral and documentary evidence, this
Court finds that the learned Court below has
committed no illegality, while passing the impugned
order dated 26.02.2018 by observing that the plaintiff
has got no valid cause of action for filing the suit.
46. Thus, from perusal of the sale deeds
dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982 and 06.10.1982,
marked as Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 respectively, it
would appear that the suit property has been
described in the sale deed as Parti Tanr having Raiyati
34
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
rights and the nature of the land has not been shown
as chapparbandi. Even at the time of passing of the
map of the Hotel dated 04.12.2008, it would appear
that the nature of the land has not been described.
47. The plaintiff and his witnesses have
failed to prove as to whether apart from the hotel
premises of the plaintiff in question any other area in
the near vicinity or other premises has been declared
as chapparbandi land or chappparbandi rent are being
issued or not as there must be some other such lands
and other such properties situated near the Hotel of
the plaintiff, but no such evidence has been brought
on record.
48. It is well settled that it is the right of the
State Government/Revenue Authority to change the
nature of land and only the State has to take policy
decision to change the nature of land or for issuance of
Chapparbandi rent of the premises of the plaintiff-
appellant in question.
49. Thus, the observation of the Circle
Officer in the order dated 23.06.2010 to the plaintiff-
appellant to move before the Civil Court for
adjudicating that the whether plaintiff is having
chapparbandi right over this suit property and entitled
to get rent receipt of Chapparbandi lagan from the
State is devoid of merit.
50. The question of the Chhapparbandi rent
has to be interpreted by the Revenue authorities
and competent authorities of the State Government,
35
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
but the Civil Courts cannot usurp the jurisdiction of
the Revenue Authorities by declaring the nature of
land as chapparbandi land by issuing chapparbandi
receipts in absence of any valid document.
51. It has been held by the Hon’ble Patna
High Court that nature of land cannot be changed in
the case of Din Dayal Ram V. Ramzan Mistri
reported in AIR 1946 Pat 466, at Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6
as follows:-
“Para 3:- The Courts below, however, have
found that plot No. 771 had long ago lost its nature of
raiyati character and not only had the land completely
lost its original nature of agricultural land, but also it
was not necessary for the owners for the cultivation of
the other raiyati lands. The learned Judicial
Commissioner says:
“For the purpose of cultivation they have houses in
other villages. These two houses are meant to be used
as shops and the judgment debtors were using these
houses as shops and not appurtenance to the
agricultural holding. Even the witness of the appellant
judgment, debtor stated that they had separate
residential house in their village and the attached
houses were being used as shops”.
Para 4:- A little later on, the learned Judge makes
similar observations:
“Plot no. 771, though noted as part of the raiyati
holding No. 74, once upon a time in 1908, it has
altogether lost its nature as raiyati land. It is now a
residence of shop-keepers, and its possession is quite
unconnected with the agricultural operations on the
west of the holding and in fact on other portions of the
holding the judgment-debtor and his co-sharers have
houses. Here it might have been acquired once upon a
time for cultivation though even this is not clear, but for
some time past it is being used as residence of36
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )shopkeepers and it would be highly inequitable to
extend to this sort of land and house obviously
unconnected with agricultural operations, the protection
from saleability by money decree which was intended
only for agricultural lands”.
Para 5:- The view of one learned Judicial
Commissioner is supported by the cases in A.I.R. 1933
Pat. 105, [(’35) 22 A.I.R. 1935 Pat. 105, Rama
Charan v. Gobindram.] and A.I.R. 1937 Pat. 321 [(’37)
24 A.I.R. 1937 Pat. 321 : 16 Pat. 316 : 169 I.C.
872, Ghasiram Marwari v. Shiba Prosad Singh.] and an
unreported decision given by a Division Bench of this
Court in Misc. Appeal No. 318 of 1933 decided by the
late Chief Justice, Courtney Terrell, C.J., and Varma, J.,
on 27th March 1936. The learned Advocate for the
appellant drew our attention to the case in 8 P.L.T. 671
[(’27) 14 A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 324 : 6 Pat. 440 : 104 I.C. 218
: 8 P.L.T. 671, Mt. Bibi Aisha v. Mahabir Prasad.] and
argues that it is immaterial to what use the land is now
being put if it is held or found that the original character
of the land of which the portion in dispute is now
sought to be sold was raiyati.
Para 6:- In face of the decisions, cited above, this
argument is not acceptable to us. It may appear some
what hard if the point of view of the judgment debtor
alone is seen. On the other hand, the decree-holder is
losing his valuable right of a decree which he has
obtained from a competent Court. I would dismiss this
appeal, but there will be no order as to costs.””
52. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
learned Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff
has no cause of action for filing this suit and has
decided this Issue against the plaintiff-appellant.
This Court fully concurs with the
reasons given in the impugned judgment dated
26.02.2018 by the learned Civil Judge.
37
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
53. It appears that the learned Court below
has held that so far as maintainability of the suit is
concerned, this suit is not maintainable in the Civil
Court because there is no lis, State has never
demanded rent but the plaintiff forcibly wants to give
it. In fact, the power of declaring a land
chhaperbandi vest under section 2(9) of the Khas
Mahal is with the Revenue Commissioner. The
preliminary duty of record of right, nature of land
etc. lies with the executive and not with the Civil
Court. The State has given no clue that nature of the
land has changed. The permission granted from
R.R.D.A. does not change the nature of land because
R.R.D.A. is not a State in the matter of grant of
chhaperbandi rent. It is the State who has realized it
and not the R.R.D.A. Therefore, without consent of
State declaration of chhaperbandi rent will be illegal.
54. However, learned counsel for the
appellant is correct that there is no provision like
Section 2(9) in Khas Mahal Mannual and going
through the provisions of Khas Mahal Mannual, it
would appear that Rule 9 prescribes for levying
Salami in Government estates whereas Section 9(2)
prescribes Salami to be charged should be a fixed
multiple of the rental of the land settled, the rental
being assessed at rates applicable to lands of similar
quality and with similar advantages in the vicinity.
However, wrong recording of certain
provisions will not render the judgment illegal.
38
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )
55. This Court finds that the learned Court
below has given correct reasons by observing that
the power to change the nature of land lies with the
Executive and not with the Civil Court. Even the
State Government has not taken any step for
realizing the rent in the form of chapparbandi rent
and till date the State/Revenue Authorities has not
raised any complaint with regard to the nature of
rent being realized from the plaintiff appellant and
the plaintiff is suo motu raising this issue
without any valid reason. The Revenue Authorities
has neither raised objection against the construction
of Birsa Hotel Pvt. Limited at any point of time nor
has raised any objection against any activities
carried out inside the hotel, i.e. for running the
restaurant and for maintaining the rooms etc. and
no dispute has been raised on behalf of the Revenue
Authorities regarding demand of any particular form
of rent.
56. Thus, the rent realized from the
plaintiff-appellant has not been disputed even till
date by the Revenue Authorities and even at the time
of hearing of this First Appeal.
57. Thus, in view of the discussions made
above, this Court finds that the learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Division) No.I has rightly rejected the claim of
the plaintiff to the effect the suit is not maintainable
in the Civil Court and this Court fully concurs with
the findings of the learned Court below. Thus, this39
Neutral Citation No.
( 2025:JHHC:24556 )issue of maintainability is also decided against the
plaintiff appellant.
58. In view of the discussions made above,
this Court finds that there is no merit in this First
Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the
judgment dated 26.02.2018 and decree dated
05.03.2018, passed by the learned Court below is
hereby confirmed.
59. Let a decreed be prepared by the Office
accordingly.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
14th August, 2024
N.A.F.R./s.m.
40