1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Prakash and learned counsel for the respondents-State Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I.

2. The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Mandal, son of Sri Basant Lal Mandal, resident of village Banwarsa, P.O.-Khesar, P.S-Belhar, DistrictBanka, Bihar has preferred this writ petition on 24.04.2019 for quashing the Letter contained Memo No.371 dated 13.06.2016 issued by the Respondent no.5, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Annexure-7), whereby and where under the Joint Secretary has exceeded his jurisdiction by constituting an illegal District Level Committee for issuance of LPC for registration of land, by surpassing the provisions contained under the Registration Act, 1908, wherein the District Sub-registrar is himself empowered to accept or deny registration of a document, therefore the act of the respondent no.5 by constituting an illegal committee is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Though the letter contained in Memo No.371 dated 13.06.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5643 of 2017 in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 affirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A No.226 of 2019 in terms of order dated 18.10.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Prakash has submitted, that he is not pressing the second prayer. He has further prayed for quashing the order/decision dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No.01 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the respondent no.5, in minutes of meeting of District Level Committee, Deoghar, whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of LPC for registration of land has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that respondents may be directed to issue LPC in favour of the petitioner for registration of Basauri transferable landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No.30/3493 D and 31/3493 V comprised within new Town Plan Plot No.1280 and 1281, Settlement Plot No.95, admeasuring an area of 3800 sq. feet, under Ward No.17 of Deoghar Municipality, situated in Mouza Khoradah, Mohalla Bompass Town, Thana No.402, sub-division, Sub-registry, P.S. and DistrictDeoghar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner is a owner having valid right, title and possession over Basauri transferable landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No.30/3493 D and 31/3493 V comprised within new Town Plan Plot No.1280 and 1281, Settlement Plot No.95, admeasuring an area of 3800 sq. feet, under Ward No.17 of Deoghar Municipality, situated in Mouza Khoradah, Mohalla Bompass Town, Thana No.402, Sub-division, Sub-registry, P.S and DistrictDeoghar. The petitioner has purchased this land vide registered Sale Deed No.2308 dated 02.09.1995 from the vendor Smt. Padma Mukherjee, W/o Late Nihar Kumar Mukherjee, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1. After purchasing the aforesaid landed property the petitioner came in exclusive possession of the land and got his name mutated in the revenue records of the Government vide Mutation Case No.174/95-96 and paid rent against grant of rent receipts, which was issued up-to the year 2011- 12, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given the history of the land that initially the land belongs to Ghatwal of Rohini estate namely Thakur Ashutosh Deo, who settled twenty khattas of land in favour of Mani Bhushan Bandhopadhayay and Subhashni Devi by grant patta on 23.05.1915 coupled with delivery of possession. The photocopy of patta dated 23.05.1915 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Further after the death of said Mani Bhushan Bandhopadhayay and subhashini Devi, their legal heirs and successors came in exclusive possession over the aforesaid land and thereafter transferred the same in favour of Nihar Kumar Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay) vide Sale Deed No.3047 dated 08.05.1965, who came in exclusive possession of the land and got his name mutated and paid the rent. After the death of Nihar Kumar Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay), his wife namely Smt. Padma Mukherjee came in exclusive possession of the aforesaid land and got her name mutated in the Revenue records of the Government vide order dated 18.11.1994 passed in Mutation Case No.225/94-95 and paid rent to the Government, whose certified copy alongwith recent receipt have been brought on record as Annexure-4 series to the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner has purchased a portion of the aforesaid land from Smt. Padma Mukherjee vide Sale Deed No.2308 dated 02.09.1995 and in the year 2010, the petitioner applied for issuance of LPC before the Circle Officer, Deoghar for purpose of registration of his land who after proper enquiry and verification issued LPC in favour of the petitioner for the land in question vide Letter No.82/Ra dated 25.1012010, the same has been brought on record as Annexure-5.

8. Though LPC was issued in favour of the petitioner, he did not sale his aforesaid land. Thereafter the respondent no.3 has issued a Letter contained in Memo No.195 dated 19.02.2016 whereby the concerned Circle Officers have been declared to issue LPC within a period of fifteen days for the purpose of registration of land, failing which the registering authority shall not register the sale deed presented for registration. The photocopy of the Memo No.195 dated 19.02.2016 has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner subsequently applied before the respondent no.8, i.e., Circle Officer, Deoghar in the month of April 2017 for issuance of LPC for the land in question but the Circle Officer, Deoghar refused to accept the same and suggested the petitioner to make application before the District Level Committee constituted by the respondent No.5, Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that is is surprising if an executive order cannot go beyond the scope of the. If the Registration Act does not provide such letter to be issued by the State Authorities, the State Authorities cannot ask the petitioner to go before them as the petitioner has to only act as per the statute provided under the law and as such, it was never the duty of Circle Officer to direct the petitioner to go before the District Level Committee.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the Circle Officer being a Government servant cannot refused to accept any letter of any citizen. He is duty bound under its authority or capacity to maintain a register with regard to receipt and accordingly he has to act but the aforesaid act shows that it is the whims and fancies of the Circle Officer, who being working in the State at lower level and the higher authorities have no concern about the same, though in democracy the supreme power lies with the people and thus this court may consider the same.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner went before the legal cell of the respondent no.5 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar but the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No.01 dated 15.01.2018 has rejected the application of the petitioner which is impugned herein.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that similar issue cropped up before co-ordinate bench of this Court with regard to part of the same property i.e., Basauri transferable landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No.30/3493 D and 31/3493 V comprising within new Town Plan Plot No.1280 and 1281, Settlement Plot No.95, measuring an area of 13591 sq. feet, under Ward No.17 of Deoghar Municipality, situated in Mouza Khoradah, Mohall Bompass Town, Thana No.402, sub-division, subregistry, P.S and District-Deoghar.

13. The writ petition was filed by one Champa Devi vide W.P.(C) No.5643 of 2017 which was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 07.12.2018, whereby the co-ordinate Bench has discussed the entire issue and quash the order/proceeding dated 08.01.2018 contained in memo no.01 dated 15.01.2018 and the District Level Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has been directed to issue LPC in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the said order passed in W.P.(C) No.5643 of 2017 in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 has been assailed by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A No.266 of 2019 on 27.03.2019 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 18.10.2022.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that this is a glaring example that State is not following the State Litigation Policy. The issue or the impugned order as contained in Memo No.1 dated 15.01.2018 which has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has already been quashed in W.P.(C) No.5643 of 2017 and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.266 of 2019, the same become redundant, as such it is duty of the State to follow the State Legal Policy by not relying upon the same document.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that this Court may pass direction to the Circle Officer, that the Circle Officers cannot refuse to receive any document or any Government Officer cannot refuse to receive the document. The document filed before a Government Officer has to be received and maintained in a register. He has further submitted, that the State Litigation Policy says once a issue has been decided by any competent court of law and attains finality, then it is the duty of the State not to rely again upon the same document rather the State should monthly review their pending cases and recall all the order so that ligation may be minimized. The High Court cannot work as assisting authority to the revenue authority. It is State Litigation Policy which has to be followed by the State and the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Department Government of Jharkhand may be directed to comply the same.

17. It is observed by this Court that Law Officers are appointed in the District level as Government pleader. Law Officer of higher rank in the State who are Principal District Judge is appointed as Principal Secretary Law, assisted by the District Judge as Additional Law Secretary but a practice has prevailed in the State of Jharkhand that they are not taking help from the law department, which creates such problem in the State of Jharkhand.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Circle Officer is not clear about his duty. He is saying petitioner to be land mafia who wants to sale his land. Had it been a case that petitioner has taken power of attorney of any other persons and showing his return before the Income Tax, that he earns profit from selling the land, he can alleged to be land mafia But a person who seeks his right has been deprecated by the Circle Officer as a land mafia, though in the C.B.I case which has been refereed in paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit, all the Government Officers, Revenue Officers of Deoghar have been made accused by the C.B.I including registering authority. The Circle Officer has accumulated wealth more than their assets. The court may pass an order to examine their assets from the date of their joining the service till date so as to ascertain their property and their act.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the Circle Officer said that it is a Gair Mazura Parti Land though the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No.3552 of 2009 has filed a counter-affidavit, where they have clarified, which of the land are Government Land, which is Gair Mazura Aam and which of the land are private land which are Gair Mazura Malik or Gair Mazura Khas but the Circle Officer has evolved a new term as Gair Mazura Parti Land, whether it was Aam land which can be claimed by the State or it was Gair Mazura Khas or Gair Mazura Malik land which can be claimed by the private party.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that if subsequent sale deeds have been made, then there is no right to examine the title by the Circle Officer. If the Circle Officer is aggrieved by the Title, then he can go before the competent court of law for cancellation of sale deeds as held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Dilip Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in 2001 SCC Online Jhar 310 / (2001) 1 JLJR 75(HC).

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the aforesaid land has been transferred in favour of the Nihar Kumar Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay) vide Sale Deed No.3047 dated 08.05.1965. After death of Nihar Kumar Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay), his wife namely Smt. Padma Mukherjee came in exclusive possession of the aforesaid land and got her name mutated in the Revenue records of the Government vide order dated 18.11.1994 passed in Mutation Case No.225/1994-95 and paid rent to the Government. Thereafter petitioner has purchased the said land from Smt. Padma Mukherjee vide Sale Deed No.2308 dated 02.09.1995 and got the land mutated in his favour vide Mutation Case No.174 of 1995-96 and paid rent till 2011-12. The Circle Officer is not justifying in asking the petitioner why in the Gantzer's report which was prepared between 1936-37 all these things have not been mentioned, because this work was never the work of the petitioner. It was the work of pre-independence surveyor known as J.F. Gantzer. The Gantzer only mentioned the name who was in actual possession at the relevant time and not writing the history of the land, as Gantzer was doing survey of the land. If the State Authorities have no responsibility to obey their own sale deeds and mutation paper, they cannot ask such question which show their intention to put hurdles to the people for their oblique motive for their illegal gain.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that it was pre independence. The Revenue Officer at that time ought to have mentioned in the Register in the year 1950 after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, but the same was not inserted the Gantzer's Report has considered the only name of person, who was in possession and having paper while he was survying the lands in the year 1936-37, as such such plea is not tenable.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that several cases can be cited before this Court, where the mutation order has been passed and even today the Register-II has not been updated by the Revenue authority, which only shows the trend prevailing in the Revenue offices, though Superior officers are also inspecting the officers periodically.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that because of inaction of revenue authority, the State is coming in litigation before this court and this Court is flooded with bogus litigation preferred by the State as such, this court may pass certain direction to the State.

25. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-I has submitted, that the counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 5 to 8 through Amar Prasad, son of Sri Baldeo Prasad, the then Circle Officer, Sadar Deoghar on 26.07.2019. Paragraph nos.-10 and 11 of the same may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"10...That with regard to the statements made in paras-5 and 6 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the same are matter of record and it is stated and submitted that land in question i.e., settlement Plot No.95 within Gair Majurwa Khata No.28 of Mouza Khoradah No.402 is recorded as Parti Kadim with an area of 1.02 acres in the purcha of the last survey settlement known as Mr. Gantzer's Settlement, how this Gair Majurwa Parti Land converted in to Basouri Land, the petitioner failed to explain the same and no supporting document has been filed in this regard to prove his contention so land in question is still a raiyati non transferable land according to S.P.T. Act, 1949. Title of the petitioner is very much in the shadow of doubt. A report was called for from the Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector submitted a detail report in this regard, in Register-II though name of Smt. Padma Mukherjee is inserted but no area of the land is inserted in Register-II. The land is still lying at Parti. The Halka Karamchari further reported that Sale Deed filed by the petitioner which is Annexure-I of the instant writ petition, it transpired that land has been obtained by Ghatwal of Rohini Estate by the seller of the land on 23.05.1915. Survey Settlement of Gantzer's ended in the year 1936-37 but name of Mani Bhusan Bandhpadhya and Subhashini Devi, who obtained the Patta from Ghatwal on 23.05.1915 not inserted in that survey settlement and land is still exist as Gair Majurwa Parti Land.

The Halka Karamchari clearly reported that Sale Deed Patta and other documents on which the petitioner rely is a forged and fabricated document and by playing fraud by land Mafia petitioner to obtain L.P.C., has been filed.

11...That is is further submitted here that large member of fraud and manipulation has been made by the land Mafia or Deoghar in revenue record of the District Government Land, Gochar Land, Parti Land etc. has been made Basouri and acquired Basouri Land (L.A.Land) and those land has been sold out, when the matter came to the knowledge of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi ordered for C.B.I enquiry and C.B.I enquiry is going on and several F.I.R was lodged against wrong doers and they are behind the Bar later on District Level Committee was constituted to check and balance the fraud.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that a bogus counter-affidavit has been filed by the Circle Officer, relying upon act of Halka Karmachari. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has already depreciated such act in the case of “The State of Jharkhand v. Chancla Devi” passed in LPA No.142 of 2010 with LPA No.307 of 2009 vide order dated 19.08.2017, has held at paragraph No.10 (d to g) as under:-

(d).Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008, who are the husband and wife have purchased small piece of land ad-measuring 20 decimals each from Rang Nath Sahu by registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and 07.07.1992.

(e). They applied for mutation entry and the application was treated as Mutation Case No. 183R 27/1993-1994 before the Circle Officer, Town, Anchal and it was allowed. Thus, mutation entries were carried out in the name of the purchasers and petitioner of W.P.

(C) No. 2900 of 2007 as well as petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008 from 1993-1994.

(f) These entries have also been continued for several years and abruptly in the year 2002, Halka Karamchari, who is lowest in the rank of Revenue Offices, has made a remark that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land from the year 1942.

(g) Thus, after 60 long years, the wisest man, who is lowest in the rank, in the revenue offices of the State of Jharkhand wrote one line that the land in question is Gair Majaruwa Malik Land and the high ranking Administrative Officers of the Revenue Department build a castle upon it, which has resulted into several revenue 6 litigations and two writ petitions and two Letters Patent Appeals.

27. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge order has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The State has not come up with case that they have preferred any appeal against the L.P.A. No.266 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly the impugned order as contained in Memo No.01 Misc. Deoghar dated 15.1.2018 issued by the then, Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Deoghar which has already been quashed is now meaningless as the same has already been quashed and it has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is directed to issue LPC certificate to the petitioner within 15 days and also to follow State Litigation Policy by reviewing all the pending matter.

28. This Court directs that State must come with litigation policy. The Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Department Government of Jharkhand must issue a letter that all the Deputy Commissioners directing them to review the pending cases in monthly meeting and if the case has attained finality in any of the decision passed by the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State should not continue with such litigation under the State Litigation Policy and they must recall such orders. If State does not taken help of the District Law Officers, who has been appointed as a Government pleader, then what is the purpose for appointment of such Government pleader. The State is not taking help of the State law officers like Principal Law Secretary and District Judge rank officer's as Additional Law Secretary in the State of Jharkhand, the State must follow the same. It appears that C.B.I enquiry was not against the petitioner, rather C.B.I enquriy was against the land mafia as well as the revenue authority and the registering authority. The copy of the documents of the circle in the District of Deoghar has been given by the C.B.I to the State officials and if not given why the State officials is not praying before the C.B.I to given photocopy of the said document authenticated by the C.B.I. But they can not take plea that the documents are taken/seized by the C.B.I. It is the duty of the State as it has been complied by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, vide his Letter No.103 @vfHk0] fnukad&14.10.2022] that entire record is being maintained, such plea is not available to any of the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand. This amounts to disobediance of the courts' order and wrong letter sent to the Chief Secretary, which is serious lapses. As such this Court directs that under the State Litigation Policy, once the Memo No.01 dated 05.01.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has been quashed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It has no meaning as on today. The Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to issue proper direction to the Deputy Commissioner and Circle Officer, to follow the State Litigation Policy.

29. This shows that the Circle Officer requires that his assets should be enquired. However, this Court is not passing any order and keep it open to the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Department, Government of Jharkhand to examine the assets of the Circle Officer, who has filed such bogus affidavit before this Court, namely Amar Prasad, son of Sri Baldeo Prasad, posted as a Circle Officer, Deoghar on 25.07.2019 and to examine his disproportionate assets if so like by the State from the date of joining of his service till the date and randomly to the Revenue authorities to check the.

30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand for issuing necessary direction to revenue officers, otherwise the Circle Officers who are taking such untainable plea before this Court shall be saddled with heavy cost.

31. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

32. The Circle Officer, Deoghar is directed to issue Land Possession Certificate to the petitioner with respect to his land, as above mentioned in this order.