1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1399 of 2007 Nepal Ram Prajapati ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra 3. Anil Kumar Pandey, S.D.O, Chatra 4. Ainul Haque 5. Ahmad Ali 6. Jakir Hussain ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Kumar For the Respondent No.: Mr. B.K.Dubey For the State: Mr. J.C to S.C (L&C) ----- 08/05.07.2017 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby, he assumed the jurisdiction against the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra in Misc. Case Nos. 50/2005-06, 4/2006-07 and set aside the order(s) pertaining to correction of revenue records entry showing prima-facie interpolation in Register-II.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the land situated at Village- Chatra, P.S. No. 175, under Khata No. 26, Khesra No. 237, area 0.05 acres, Khesra No. 238, area 0.07 acres, Khesra No. 239, area 0.72 acres and Khesra No. 271, area 0.04 acres, total area 0.88 acres was settled in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner, namely, Bandhan Kumhar by the Zamindar Dhanu Khalifa and he was paying rent for the aforesaid land. After vesting of Zamindari, the name of Bandhan Kumhar was entered in Vol-II, Page No.34 of Register-II and he started paying rent to the Government.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some interpolation in Register-II pertaining to Khata number was noticed, as would be apparent from perusal of Annexure-2 that Khata No. 26 has been cut and 2 written as 31. However, in another column of Register-II, Khata No. appears as 26. The petitioner accordingly filed a petition for correction of the record, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 50/2005-06. The Circle Officer, Chatra after making an enquiry and upon hearing the parties, allowed the petition vide order dated 28.06.2006 and recommended to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra for making necessary correction of Khata No. in Register-II. Thereafter, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra vide order dated 12.12.2006, substantively approved the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Chatra and held to continue the Zamabandi in favour of the petitioner with respect to 0.88 acres, except an area measuring 2.94 acre, the Zamabandi of which was ordered to be created in favour of Dhanu Khalifa, Ainul Haque etc. Surprisingly, the respondent No.3 on an application filed by the respondent No.4, called for the record of the case from the office of the Circle Officer, Chatra and assuming the jurisdiction of a revisional authority, passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2007 setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra and Circle Officer, Chatra with a direction that the Zamabandi of the concerned land should be in favour of the ancestors of the respondent Nos. 4 & others.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 transgressed his jurisdiction/authority by interfering with the orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Circle Officer, Chatra pertaining to correction in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Sub-divisional Officer, Chatra has no jurisdiction under the provisions of Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'] to pass the impugned order dated 31.01.2007. As per the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the said Act, the original authority is the Circle Officer, the appellate authority is the Land 3 Reforms Deputy Collector and the revisional authority is the Collector. As such, the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Chatra is wholly without jurisdiction and nonest in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Sub-divisional Officer is the head revenue officer and as such he has power to call for any revenue record to see the correctness of the orders passed by the Circle Officer or the Land Reforms Deputy Collector.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that the Sub-divisional Officer is duly empowered to make necessary correction in the revenue record and therefore he called for the revenue records from the Circle Officer, Chatra to examine the correctness of the same, which is completely lawful and the impugned order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Chatra needs no interference by this Court.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that on an application filed by the petitioner, the Circle Officer, Chatra vide order dated 28.06.2006, recommended for making necessary correction of Khata No. of the land in question in Register-II and the same was sent to the office of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra. On receipt of the record and on hearing both the sides, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra vide order dated 12.12.2006 substantially accepted the recommendation of the Circle Officer and ordered for continuation of Zamabandi with respect to 0.88 acres of the concerned Khata in favour of the petitioner, except the land measuring 2.94 acres, which is directed to be entered in favour of the respondent No. 4 and others. On an application of the respondent No.4, the records of the case i.e. Misc. Case Nos. 50/2005-06 and 04/2006-07 were, thereafter, called for, by the respondent No.3 and he passed the impugned order dated 4 31.01.2007 setting aside the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra and the Circle Officer, Chatra and further ordered for correction in revenue records and creation of Zamabandi in favour of the respondent No.4 & others. The primary issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the jurisdiction exercised by the respondent No.3 treating himself to be the revisional authority.
9. The authorities and jurisdiction relating to mutation/changes in the tenants' Ledger Register has been prescribed in the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. The relevant provisions of the said Act are quoted hereunder:
“14. Requisition and disposal of mutation case.- (1) On receipt of notice under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 or an application under Sections 11 and 12 or a report under Section 13, the Anchal Adkhikari shall start a mutation proceeding and after entering it in the mutation case register which shall be maintained in the prescribed form shall cause such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. ……..”
“15. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector against the order of the Anchal Adhikari passed under sub-section (2) of Section 14, if preferred within thirty days of the date of the order appealed against. ……..”
“16. Revision.- The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit : ………”
10. On perusal of Sections 14, 15 & 16 of the said Act, it would be evident that the original authority for requisition and disposal of mutation case is the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer). As per Section 15 of the said Act, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector is the appellate authority and as per Section 16 of the said Act, the Collector is the 5 revisional authority.
11. The Sub-divisional Officer has been defined under Section 2(t) of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, which reads as under: “(t) “sub-divisional Officer” means the officer-in-charge of the civil administration of the sub-division of a district;”
12. In view of the said definition, the Sub-divisional Officer is the officer-in-charge of the civil administration of the sub-division of the district for the purpose of the said Act. However, the Sub-divisional officer is not an authority under the provisions of Sections 14, 15 & 16 of the said Act.
13. It is well settled that the power/jurisdiction of an authority is conferred by the statute. No authority can exercise jurisdiction in absence of any such power conferred by the statute.
14. In the case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., reported in (2003) 2 SCC111 the Hon'ble Supreme has held as under:
“40. ---- It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof.”
15. In the case of Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma Vs. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, reported in (2007) 6 SCC35 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“20. ------ The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the principal Act. (See Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 12 SCC753: (2006) 11 Scale 108] .) A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the university must be maintained as otherwise chaos would be 6 created. If distance education of such a nature is to be encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions of the Act.”
16. In the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2003) 2 SCC533 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “27.The Central Government and the State Government are statutory authorities. They must, thus, act within the four corners of the statute. When an order is meant to be passed by the State Government or the Central Government the same must be passed by an authority competent therefor. An order which has been passed by an officer without an authority would be non est. The Central Government, therefore, could not have acted thereupon particularly when the State itself took such a stand. It failed to take into consideration that the recommendation dated 30-6-2001 being withdrawn, was no longer operative.”
17. Admittedly, the revisional authority under the said Act is the Collector of the district. No such power has been conferred to the Sub- divisional Officer under the said Act. In the present case, if the original order was passed by the Circle Officer, Chatra, the said order was appealable before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Though the Circle Officer committed procedural error in making recommendation to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra for making correction in the revenue records, yet the said procedural errors cannot be said to be fatal in nature, as the Land Reforms Deputy Collector is the appellate authority under the said Act. However, so far as assuming of the revisional jurisdiction by the Sub-divisional Officer, Chatra is concerned, the same is completely illegal as the revisional power can only be exercised by the Collector of the district.
18. In view of the above discussions and the judicial pronouncements, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 31.01.2007 having been passed by the respondent No.3 without any jurisdiction, cannot be sustained in law and the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 7 19. It is made clear that the present order is confined to the issue of jurisdiction and no observation has been made with regard to the respective claims of the parties with respect to the land in question. It is open to the parties to take appropriate recourse, as provided under law.
20. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observations and directions. (RAJESH SHANKAR, J) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 05.07.2017 Satish/AFR