[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Saraswati Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 365 of 2024
------
1. Saraswati Devi, Aged about 82 years, Wife of Late Bharosi Mahto
@ Bharosi Yadav,
2. Bihari Prasad Yadav, Aged about 56 years, Son of Late Bharosi
Mahto @ Bharosi Yadav,
Sl. No. 1 & 2, both residents of Village: Nagara, P.O. & P.S.:
Balumath, District: Latehar.
... Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District: Latehar.
3. The Addl. Collector, Latehar, P.O. , P.S. & District: Latehar.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District: Latehar.
5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar, P.O. , P.S. &
District: Latehar.
6. The Circle Officer, Balumath, P.O. & P.S.: Balumath, District:
Latehar.
7. The General Manager (Land & Revenue), Central Coalfields
Limited, Darbhanga House, Kanke Road, Opp. Of Rajbhawan
House, P.O.: G.P.O., P.S.: Sadar, District: Latehar.
8. The General Manager, Rajhara Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
Rajhara, P.O. & P.S.: Chandwa, District: Latehar.
1
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
9. The Personnel Officer (Land & Revenue), Rajhara Area, Central
Coalfields Limited, Rajhara, P.O. & P.S.: Chandwa, District:
Latehar.
10. The Project Officer, Tetaria Kharh Open Mines Project, Central
Coal Fields Limited, P.O. & P.S.: Balumath, District: Latehar.
... Respondents/Respondents
11. Suresh Yadav, Son of Late Bharosi Mahto @ Bharosi Yadav,
resident of Village: Nagara, P.O. & P.S.: Balumath, District:
Latehar. ... Writ Petitioner/Proforma Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Akash Kumar Lal, Advocate
: Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
: Mr. Shray Mishra, Advocate
------
Order No. 11
CAV on 25th June, 2025 Pronounced on 21st July, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. This appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against
the order dated 7th May, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3780 of 2020 whereby
and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed while coming
to the conclusion that the disputed question of facts is involved and
2
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
the title of the appellants cannot be decided, since the appellants
have not produced any document to substantiate their title except the
Raiyati Certificate.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the petition
needs to be refer herein which reads as under:
The land in question was settled by the ex-landlord to the original
petitioner by virtue of Hukumnama. At the time of vesting, return was
filed by the ex-landlord namely Kapil Mahto for the land settled in the
name of original petitioner. After vesting of the land, the erstwhile
Government of Bihar recognized the original petitioner as a tenant.
After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has paid
rent for the land settled to him by the ex-landlord in lieu of grant of
rent receipt. The Land Acquisition Officer, Latehar enquired from the
Circle Officer, Balumath about the land for development of Tetaria
Kharh Coal Project, O.B. Dump.
The Circle Officer, Balumath instituted Case Record 1/2009-10 for
certification of raiyati interest. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector,
Latehar on the basis of recommendation of the Circle Officer,
Balumath made recommendation which is countersigned by Sub-
Divisional Officer, Latehar for grant of Raiyati status of the land and
the Additional Collector, Latehar on the basis of the said
recommendation of the Circle Officer, Balumath, certified Raiyati
status of the land and 17 (seventeen) Raiyats including the original
3
2025:JHHC:19943-DBpetitioner was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner.
On 15.05.2012, the original petitioner made representation to the
Project Officer, Tetaria Kharh, Collieries, Balumath that he had given
consent to work on his land but no crop compensation was given and
demanded compensation and employment. The Circle Officer,
Balumath vide notice dated 05.06.2012 informed the petitioner that
the land in question is in “Gaimajarua Khata.”
The Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide notification dated
18.08.2015 published in Extra Ordinary Gazette; circulated Public
Notice vide Hindi Daily Prabhat Khabar dated 07.09.2015, issued
notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &
Development) Act, 1957 for acquisition of 73.55 hectares of land for
coal mining.
The grand children of the original petitioner made representation
to the Project Manager, OCP Tetaria Kharh, praying therein that they
have not received any compensation in lieu of the land in question,
hence, they may be given employment as per their educational
qualification.
A tripartite meeting has been organized in the office of General
Manager, Rajhara Area at 10:00 am for extension of Tetaria Kharh
Project and ultimately vide the said Annexure10, the benefits
Rehabilitation & Resettlement including employment in lieu of the
said land was denied on the ground that in Hal Khatiyan, the land in
4
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
question has been recorded as “Gairmajarua Malik”. It is contended
by the petitioner that the original petitioner by remaining in the
possession for a long time, has accrued Raiyati status.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid has preferred a
writ petition being W.P.(C) 3780 of 2020 wherein it has been
contended that the original petitioner by remaining in the possession
for a long time, has accrued Raiyati status.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the
revenue record, as well as the C.S. Khatiyan show that the land in
question is a “Gairmajaruwa Malik” land.
5. The learned writ Court after appreciating the pleading of the parties
has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that as no
document of ownership of the land could be produced by the original
petitioner except a Raiyati certificate issued by the Additional
Collector countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned
writ Court has further observed that since disputed questions of fact
involved herein, as such the same can at best be adjudicated in a
properly constituted suit but cannot be adjudicated in this petition in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
6. Against the order passed by the learned writ Court the present
appeal has been preferred.
5
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
7. It is evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that the
appellant-petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision of the
respondent authorities as appended to Annexure 10 to the writ
petition by which the claim of the compensation along with the
employment under the R & R policy has been rejected on the ground
that the land has been shown in the record of rights as the
“Gairmajarua Malik”.
8. The State as well as the BCCL have appeared and taken the ground
that the nature of the land is “Gairmajarua Malik” and the same has
been acquired by the State in the year 1962 and the part of the land
was acquired in the year 2016, therefore the appellants having no
title over the land in question, hence it is not a case where the
compensation is to be given to the writ petitioners.
9. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid
fact and has rejected the writ petition by giving liberty to file a suit
before the competent court of jurisdiction, which is under challenge
in the instant appeal.
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has taken the following grounds:
(i) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration
the entire document has come out with the conclusion that the
disputed question of fact is involved while it is not a case where
6
2025:JHHC:19943-DBthe disputed question of fact is involved, rather it is a case
where the land has been acquired without making payment of
compensation, hence the order passed by learned Single Judge
needs interference.
(ii) The argument has been advanced that although the land
acquisition is admitted herein and by virtue of perennial
possession on the land in question by the petitioners, they are
entitled for the compensation, but the aforesaid fact has also
not been taken into consideration by the learned writ Court.
10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted
that the impugned order needs interference.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the State:
11. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as
well as BCCL has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge, since, it is the admitted case of the writ
petitioners that no document pertaining to the tile has been
produced by them except the Raiyati Certificate.
(ii) It has been contended that the Raiyati Certificate cannot be
said to be a ground to establish the title and in absence of the
title, no order of compensation can be passed.
(iii) The acquisition of the particular land has been made in the
year 1962 and subsequent part of the land in the year 2016,
7
2025:JHHC:19943-DBbut no grievance has ever been raised on behalf of the
appellants.
(iv) The publication of R.S. Khatiyan is presumed to be final u/s 84
of CNT Act and the notification of state government to act upon
R.S. Khatiyan supersedes the order of the Deputy
Commissioner and views in respect of R.S. Khatiyan and its
presumption has been opined, in the light of the verdict of this
High Court and notification of the State Government.
12. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted
that therefore there is no error in the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order and it has correctly been
said to get the right adjudicated by filing suit before the competent
Court of jurisdiction, hence the order impugned needs no
interference.
Analysis:
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment as also the pleading made in the memo of appeal and the
affidavits filed in the instant appeal.
14. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer the admitted
fact that Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants,
in course of the argument, has admitted that no document is there
to establish the title in favour of the writ petitioners, but since they
8
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
are in possession on the land in question for 70 years, hence they
are entitled for compensation.
15. This Court, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, is to consider as to
whether on the basis of possession, which itself is being disputed,
the amount of compensation can be paid in favour of the writ
petitioners?
16. There is no dispute of the fact that the issuance of rent receipts is
being shown to be the ground of possession over the land in
question.
17. The law is well-settled that Rent receipts are primarily fiscal
documents and do not confer title to land. They serve as proof of
payment but do not establish ownership or possession rights over
the property. This principle is reinforced in catena of judgments,
stating that mere issuance of rent receipts cannot create title to the
land or prove possession.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Suraj Bhan v. Financial
Commr.” (2007) 6 SCC 186 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
“9. … It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not
confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights.
It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi
have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no
ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title
to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a
competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). ….”
(Emphasis supplied)
9
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802, has been
pleased to hold that mutation of property in revenue records
neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any
presumptive value on title. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraph 7 of the judgment is quoted as under:
“7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v.
Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an
occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that
mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes
title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries
are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view
has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.”
20. Herein the rent receipts admittedly have been issued in favour of
the writ petitioners, but the element of actual possession is being
disputed by the State and the BCCL, since, as per the BCCL, the
mining operation is being carried out over the land in question.
21. The appellants-writ petitioners’ sole ground is based upon the
amount of compensation and the employment to be provided under
the R & R Policy on the basis of possession over the land in question
for the last 70 years.
22. The said argument has been tried to be strengthened on the basis of
the Circular dated 12.02.2015 issued by the secretary of State of
Jharkhand wherein it has been decided that on the ground of long
possession i.e the possession of 30 years, the amount of the
compensation is to be paid. However, the issue of possession has
10
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
been disputed by the respondent-BCCL by taking the ground that
the mining operation is being carried out.
23. The question of taking aid of the aforesaid circular has been taken
as a new ground, therefore serious objection has been made by the
learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the
BCCL, by taking the ground that the learned counsel for the
appellant is trying to make out a new case which is not permissible
in an intra-court appeal.
24. This Court has found substance in the ground as has been raised by
the learned counsel for the State and BCCL.
25. Although, the intra-court appeal is the furtherance of the
proceeding of the writ court, but since the order which is under
challenge is being scrutinized so as to come to the conclusion
regarding its legality/illegality, hence it is not available for the
litigant concerned, herein the appellants-writ petitioners, to take a
new ground by making of totally a new case.
26. The issue can be taken into consideration by the intra-court appeal
in view of the fact that the intra-court appeal is the furtherance of
the proceeding of the original writ court, but that also depends
upon the pleading as pleaded in the memo of appeal.
27. It is settled position of law that if there is no pleading having been
taken before the writ court, then it is not available for the party
concerned to come out totally with the new case for the purpose of
11
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
scrutinizing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the
basis of the document which was never been placed before the
learned Single Judge for its consideration.
28. If a document would have been there before the learned writ court,
the matter would have been different and in that circumstances, the
writ court would have considered the said document but that is not
the case herein, rather the learned counsel for the appellant has
admitted the element of title having not lying with the appellants
rather on the basis of the possession, the amount of compensation
has been sought to be paid that too on the basis of the aforesaid .
However long possession has never been the ground before the
learned Single Judge, rather, as would appear from the prayer made
in the writ petition that the ground taken on behalf of the writ
petitioners before the learned writ court was to make payment of
compensation presenting themselves (appellants) to be the title-
holder of the land which has been acquired and has been handed
over in favour of the BCCL.
29. Now, the ground has been taken of long possession, based upon the
said circular.
30. Even, the element of possession has been disputed by the BCCL
since the BCCL has come out with the case that mining operation is
going on over the land in question.
31. This Court, considering the aforesaid factual aspect and if in such
12
2025:JHHC:19943-DB
circumstances, learned Single Judge has come out with the finding
by not adjudicating the issue in exercise of the power conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of
availability of disputed question of fact with an observation to get
the issue adjudicated by filing a suit before the competent court of
civil jurisdiction, which according to our considered view, cannot be
said to suffer from an error.
32. Hence, this Court is of the view that the view taken by learned
Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error.
33. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
34. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree, (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Samarth/A.F.R.
13
[ad_2]
Source link