JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON AJAY KUMAR SINGH V/S UMA SHANKAR SINGH AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Sept. 3 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 4:

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been field for quashing the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Koderma in L.A. Case No.40/2021 (MCA No.118/2022) whereby and whereunder the intervenor application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been rejected.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, his uncle namely Ramadahin Singh and father of Respondent No. 1& 2 had purchased a piece of land situated at village Ashna, khata No. 97, Plot no. 2179, area 4 decimals vide registered deed of sale being sale deed no. 5135, dated 27.11.1946 from Dipan Naik.

3. The land was in possession of Khatiyani raiyat Thakuri Teli and after his death his only son Deepak Naik came in possession of the land of Khata no. 97. He sold it to Ramashish Singh S/o Babu Kashi Singh and Ramadahin Singh S/o Gajadhar Singh. Bajo Singh, who was the father of this petitioner, participated money to his brother Ramadahin Singh for the purchase of the said land, as he was the only earning member of the Hindu Joint family.

4. Later on, Bajo Singh started construction upon the land and made double storied building on the land. That both the purchasers got equal amount of land and constructed house, Ramadahin Singh got and half area that is 02 decimals of land, wherein he and his brother Bajo Singh started living in the said house. Later, their sons partitioned the said land in 2002, thereafter both the brothers applied for Mutation before the Anchal Adhikari, who found them having possession separately living, and the C.O. Koderma mutated the land in their names separately. After mutation petitioner started paying rent to State and holding tax to Nagar Parishad.

5. The petitioner got into an agreement with his brothers, and got an area of 1 decimal of the said land in Mauza-Ashanabad. Thereafter the petitioner applied for Mutation vide Muatation Case No. 1564/2021-22 and the same was duly mutated in his name and the rent receipts were issued in his name and his name was entered in Register II. Petitioner also applied for Holding Tax to the Jhumri telaiya Nagar parishad for possession of his house. It is submitted that, for widening of NH31, land of raiyats have been acquired through the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Koderma, but no notice has been issued to the petitioner about the said acquisition. Therefore, he objected the Agreement before Land Acquisition Officer, Koderma and thereafter LAO, Koderma directed the incharge Amin to measure the land of the petitioner and submit report of the same. It is further stated that respondents who are the sons of Ramashish Singh and Ramadahin Singh submitted application before LAO Koderma denying the claim of the petitioner over the land in question and also submitted forged Genealogical Table not mentioning the name of the Bajo Singh.

6. Further, LAO Koderma after finding the dispute between the parties sent the matter for reference to Land Acquisition Court, Koderma. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Judge Koderma vide L.A. case no. 40 of 2021 initiated the proceeding and issued notices, but no notice was issued to this petitioner.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the entire materials on record including the impugned order, it is not in dispute that the land, in question was purchased by one Ramashish Singh and Ramdahin Singh and they were co-owners of the said property. Petitioner claims to be impleaded is premised on the ground that in the consideration amount of the said purchase, father of the petitioner (Bajo Singh) who happens to be the brother of Ramashish Singh and Ramdahin Singh had also contributed. This plea is fit to be rejected at the outset in view of the Benami transaction. Secondly, it is argued that over one decimal of land with the consent of his brother, Ramdahin Singh, the petitioner had constructed a residential house and mere construction of the building is not supported. This plea cannot also be considered against the claim of title and possession of the property who had purchased it by way of registered sale-deed.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant CMP and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

Pending, I.A (s). if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.