President Murmu's Concerns On Delayed Enforcement Of Decrees Relevant: Jharkhand HC Slams State For Decades-Long Failure To Mutate Revenue Records

In a recent hearing at the Jharkhand High Court, a case spanning over four decades has taken center stage, highlighting the plight of a petitioner who has been denied the fruits of a favourable court decree in relation to a land dispute.

In this backdrop, Justice Ananada Sen presiding over the case recollected the recent concerns raised by President of India Droupadi Murmu on the issue of enforcement of decrees.

"There are a number of cases that reach finality in either the high courts or the Supreme Court. But, sometimes, even when a favourable verdict has been received – after years of waiting – litigants find that they have not received what they were fighting for...The aggrieved litigant can always file a contempt petition, but they would naturally be worried about initiating a second round of litigation. Therefore, if there is no legal provision now, I am certain that some way could be introduced," the President had said in her address during inauguration of High Court's new building.

Finding force in her words, Justice Sen lamented the State's inaction in giving effect to the decree by mutating the revenue records in favour of the decree holder.

“A litigant, after fighting for long years, gets relief from the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. He is filled with joy on getting the decree in his favour after contesting for long years. But, this smile of joy, within few years, is converted into a gloom and his smile vanishes as he does not get the fruit of the decree...The State should have suo moto corrected the revenue records immediately...They behaved like a private litigant, which is unexpected of them."

On March 2nd, 1979, the petitioner's father, alongside others, initiated a Title Suit seeking rights, title, interest, and confirmation of possession over the property outlined in Schedule 'A'. Additionally, they requested restoration of possession if they were found to be dispossessed. The defendants, including ancestors of the private respondents, contested the suit by submitting their written statement. The suit was initially dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, whose judgment on June 14, 1982, also went against them. However, the plaintiffs pursued a second appeal before the High Court, which, on January 3, 1989, ruled in their favor and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court. Upon rehearing, the First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court's decision via its judgment on 26.05.2005, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, who are the ancestors of the petitioner in this case.

The defendants appealed the judgment of the first instance to the High Court, which was dismissed on 03.09.2010. The High Court affirmed the appellate judgment and decree. Subsequently, the defendants sought recourse in the Supreme Court through a Special Leave to Appeal, but their appeal was also dismissed on 22.02.2011.

Highlighting the legal proceedings, the Court observed, “Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the right, title and interest of the petitioners/their ancestors over the Schedule 'A' property, which is also the subject matter of this writ petition, was upheld and confirmed. The First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff (ancestors of the petitioner herein) are in possession over the suit land described in Schedule 'A', thus, their possession over the said land was also confirmed.”

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had approached the Court to address grievances against the State. The petitioner's contention was that despite the aforementioned judgments and orders, rent receipts were not being issued in their favor, a practice that had ceased during the pendency of the Civil Suit/Appeal.

“This is how, in spite of having a decree in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is being deprived of fruits of the same. Thus, the feeling of the First Citizen of the country gets relevance in the facts of this case,” the Court said.

Since there was a threat of the petitioners being evicted from the land in question, on 02.02.2024, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court had directed to maintain status quo over the lands.

During the course of the argument, it was argued that the descendant of the defendants in the Title Suit, who is the private respondent, had initiated another lawsuit against the petitioner concerning the same land in question. Consequently, the State has refrained from taking steps regarding the issuance of rent receipts.

Furthermore, it was contended that the State's defense is deemed frivolous, particularly since a Civil Court had previously ruled in favor of the petitioner's ancestors in a suit that had undergone scrutiny up to the Supreme Court. In response, this Court directed Revenue Officers to appear before it on 07.03.2024. However, as the officers failed to provide a satisfactory response, the Court granted them an opportunity and adjourned the case to today.

The respondents countered with additional arguments by stating that the State has raised an additional plea, asserting that the land records remain uncorrected, and without rectification, the petitioner cannot obtain any relief. Additionally, the respondents argued that the petitioner waited over 12 years after the judgment to seek this relief, thereby disqualifying them from entitlement to it.

However, referring to the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the High Court underscored, “it is clear that it was the duty of the State to correct the revisional survey record as it has already been held that in the record the name of the defendant is wrongly entered. The State did not correct the same, nor did they issued rent receipt also to the appellant. There cannot be more injustice done to this petitioner by the State than what has been done now. This sort of situation cannot be conceived of.”

The Court pointed out that since the possession of the petitioner and/or his ancestors has already been declared in a decree in a title suit and affirmed up to the Supreme Court, no authority should have expressed any doubt over the same.

“The fact remains that this poor person had to approach this Court for his legitimate right, approval of which has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his favour where right, title, interest and possession also has already been declared. These types of indifferent attitude needs to be addressed by this Court in a very harsh manner with a strong hand,” the Court added.

To give one more opportunity to the State, the Court directed the State to immediately implement the direction given by the Appellate Court in the Title Appeal at paragraph 46 of the said judgment and report to this Court by 03.04.2024, failing which the Revenue Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and the Chief Secretary will remain present before this Court at 04.30 p.m. on the said date so that appropriate order can be passed in their presence.

The case has now been listed on April 3 “For Orders”.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate

For the Respondents : Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I, Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG I, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2024

Case Title: Surendra Prasad Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand

Click Here To Read / Download Order