Deodahri Dhobi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - 3. the land reforms deputy collector, hazaribagh recommended for mutation of their names and the same was approved by the sub divisional officer, barhi by his order dated 16th december, 2003. but on appeal, the said order was set aside by the learned additional collector, hazaribagh on the ground that the land was recorded in the name of tipan hazam and there was no iota of evidence to show raiyati right of the recorded tenant. learned additional collector as well as the commissioner have committed serious error in ignoring the same and dismissing the petitioners' claim. (l&c), appearing on behalf of the state respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellate authority as well as revisional authority have thoroughly considered the relevant facts and materials on record and have found that there was no iota of evidence of surrendering the raiyati land by the recorded tenant and in absence thereof, any settlement made in respect of the said land cannot confer any right or title to the petitioners. the impugned orders are well considered and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. on going through the impugned orders, i find that the appellate authority as well as revisional authority, both, have thoroughly considered all aspects and have come to the concurrent finding that there was no evidence of surrender by the recorded tenant and any settlement made without such surrender cannot be held to be legal and cannot confer any valid title. the impugned orders are well discussed and thoroughly considered.ordern.n. tiwari, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11th june, 2007 passed by the learned commissioner, north chhotanagpur division, hazaribagh in revenue case no. 63 of 2004, whereby the learned commissioner has dismissed the revision upholding the appellate order passed by the additional collector, hazaribagh in appeal no. man-44/2003 dated 14th july, 2004.2. it has been stated that the petitioners have claimed right, title and possession over the land appertaining to khata no. 11, plot no. 135, area 1.98 acres and plot no. 161, area 1.29 acres; total area 3.27 acres of village basrai, p.s. barhi, district hazaribagh, on the basis of settlement made by the ex-landlord. it has been stated that the recorded tenant, tipan hazam. son of karu hazam, had surrendered the said land to the ex-landlord, raja surendra nath karandeo, in the year 1930. thereafter, the ex-landlord settled the said land in 1939. on the basis thereof, the petitioners had prayed for mutation of their names in respect of the said land.3. the land reforms deputy collector, hazaribagh recommended for mutation of their names and the same was approved by the sub divisional officer, barhi by his order dated 16th december, 2003. but on appeal, the said order was set aside by the learned additional collector, hazaribagh on the ground that the land was recorded in the name of tipan hazam and there was no iota of evidence to show raiyati right of the recorded tenant. since the land was recorded as raiyati and in absence of valid surrender, any settlement of the said land is not valid and legal. the additional collector thus set aside the order of the learned sub divisional officer.4. the petitioners, thereafter, filed revision before the learned commissioner, north chhotanagpur division, ranchi. learned commissioner has also taken the similar view, upheld the order of the additional collector and dismissed the petitioners' revision.5. it has been stated that the petitioners have been in possession of the land and the same was also found by the revenue authority. on that basis recommendation was made for mutation in their favour. learned additional collector as well as the commissioner have committed serious error in ignoring the same and dismissing the petitioners' claim.6. learned j.c. to s.c. (l&c;), appearing on behalf of the state respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellate authority as well as revisional authority have thoroughly considered the relevant facts and materials on record and have found that there was no iota of evidence of surrendering the raiyati land by the recorded tenant and in absence thereof, any settlement made in respect of the said land cannot confer any right or title to the petitioners. on the basis of the settlement without any proof of surrender of the said land by recorded tenant, the petitioners' name cannot be mutated/entered into the revenue record. the impugned orders are well considered and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.7. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. on going through the impugned orders, i find that the appellate authority as well as revisional authority, both, have thoroughly considered all aspects and have come to the concurrent finding that there was no evidence of surrender by the recorded tenant and any settlement made without such surrender cannot be held to be legal and cannot confer any valid title.8. in view of the above, the said authorities have refused to uphold the petitioners' claim. the impugned orders are well discussed and thoroughly considered. i find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned, orders. so far as the dispute regarding title and possession of the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in the writ jurisdiction of this court.9. i, therefore, find no legal ground to interfere with the impugned orders. this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. so far as the question of right, title and possession over the said land is concerned, the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11th June, 2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Revenue Case No. 63 of 2004, whereby the learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision upholding the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Appeal No. MAN-44/2003 dated 14th July, 2004.

2. It has been stated that the petitioners have claimed right, title and possession over the land appertaining to Khata No. 11, Plot No. 135, Area 1.98 Acres and Plot No. 161, Area 1.29 Acres; total area 3.27 Acres of village Basrai, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh, on the basis of settlement made by the ex-landlord. It has been stated that the recorded tenant, Tipan Hazam. son of Karu Hazam, had surrendered the said land to the ex-landlord, Raja Surendra Nath Karandeo, in the year 1930. Thereafter, the ex-landlord settled the said land in 1939. On the basis thereof, the petitioners had prayed for mutation of their names in respect of the said land.

3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh recommended for mutation of their names and the same was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Barhi by his order dated 16th December, 2003. But on appeal, the said order was set aside by the learned Additional Collector, Hazaribagh on the ground that the land was recorded in the name of Tipan Hazam and there was no iota of evidence to show raiyati right of the recorded tenant. Since the land was recorded as raiyati and in absence of valid surrender, any settlement of the said land is not valid and legal. The Additional Collector thus set aside the order of the learned Sub Divisional Officer.

4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed revision before the learned Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Learned Commissioner has also taken the similar view, upheld the order of the Additional Collector and dismissed the petitioners' revision.

5. It has been stated that the petitioners have been in possession of the land and the same was also found by the revenue authority. On that basis recommendation was made for mutation in their favour. Learned Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner have committed serious error in ignoring the same and dismissing the petitioners' claim.

6. Learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C;), appearing on behalf of the State respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellate authority as well as revisional authority have thoroughly considered the relevant facts and materials on record and have found that there was no iota of evidence of surrendering the raiyati land by the recorded tenant and in absence thereof, any settlement made in respect of the said land cannot confer any right or title to the petitioners. On the basis of the settlement without any proof of surrender of the said land by recorded tenant, the petitioners' name cannot be mutated/entered into the revenue record. The impugned orders are well considered and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. On going through the impugned orders, I find that the appellate authority as well as revisional authority, both, have thoroughly considered all aspects and have come to the concurrent finding that there was no evidence of surrender by the recorded tenant and any settlement made without such surrender cannot be held to be legal and cannot confer any valid title.

8. In view of the above, the said authorities have refused to uphold the petitioners' claim. The impugned orders are well discussed and thoroughly considered. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned, orders. So far as the dispute regarding title and possession of the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

9. I, therefore, find no legal ground to interfere With the impugned orders. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. So far as the question of right, title and possession over the said land is concerned, the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.