Jharkhand HC Rejects State's Plea Against Quashing Of Executive Order Barring Society From Registering Land Despite Final Decree, Fines ₹50K
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed state government's appeal against a single judge's decision which had quashed an executive order restricting a cooperative society from registering a land despite a civil court decree in the latter's favour which had attained finality. In doing so the court said that the civil court decree will not be set aside merely because the State claims that there was...
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed state government's appeal against a single judge's decision which had quashed an executive order restricting a cooperative society from registering a land despite a civil court decree in the latter's favour which had attained finality.
In doing so the court said that the civil court decree will not be set aside merely because the State claims that there was a forgery in the revenue records. It thus imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the State.
A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan rejected the State's attempt to rely on certain observations in the civil court's decree to justify its executive order and reiterated that the proper legal recourse would have been to seek cancellation of the decree, which it had not done.
The Bench observed, “We are afraid that the observations in the decree of the civil court being relied upon by the appellants cannot help the appellants in any manner unless they file a civil suit seeking cancellation of the decree obtained by the 1st respondent on the ground of fraud or forgery or alteration and interpolation in revenue records and preparation of Register-II and succeed in the said suit against the 1st respondent.”
The Court also emphasised, “Merely because the appellants assure or claim that there is a forgery or alteration or interpolation in the revenue records or that the Register-II is a bogus one, the decree obtained by the 1st respondent in the civil suit will not stand set-aside.”
The ruling was delivered in the State's appeal against a single judge's order in a writ petition filed by a registered co-operative society, seeking to quash the executive communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in a land dispute. This communication declared the land in question to be “non-transferable” and restricted the registration of conveyance deeds in respect of it.
The society contended that its right, title, and interest over the land had already been adjudicated in its favour in a Title Suit, in which the State was a party. The suit decree was upheld in a Title Appeal after contest and attained finality when the Second Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019.
Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner issued the 2020 communication restricting registration, prompting the society to approach the High Court. The Single Judge had said that the society had a right, title and interest over the land which had already been adjudicated in its favour in the civil suit which judgment had attained finality and, therefore, it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to declare the land to be non-registrable "through through an executive order/notification".The single judge had thus quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order.
Against this the State moved the division bench in appeal
In the appeal, the State argued that as per survey records, the land was classified as “gair majarua malik” (land which belongs to an intermediary) and that a 2019 notification had offered the society an opportunity to substantiate its title before the Deputy Commissioner, which it failed to do.
The State also relied on an observation in the original civil court judgment, suggesting that if the appellants come to a concrete conclusion that there was forgery, alteration or interpolation in the revenue records and preparation of a bogus Register-II had been committed, then the decree granted to the society would stand converted into a decree obtained by committing fraud upon and against the State which would be adjudged to be void under the Specific Relief Act.
However, the bench rejected this line of reasoning and said, “Admittedly, the appellants have not chosen to file a subsequent suit challenging the decree obtained by the 1st respondent raising the said pleas till date.”
Accordingly, the bench held that the Single Judge had rightly relied upon the final decree and quashed the Deputy Commissioner's executive order.
Dismissing the appeal the bench said, "We thus find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent within four weeks".
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand Secretary and Ors vs Prabudh Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 29