Jharkhand HC upholds 50-year-old oral partition in Dumka land dispute
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, August 31: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of three revenue…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, August 31: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of three revenue authorities that a family partition of land in Dumka took place orally more than five decades ago.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while hearing W.P.(C) No. 5443 of 2008, held that the petitioners had failed to establish any ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also reiterated that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence when findings of fact by subordinate authorities are supported by material on record.
The dispute concerns land in Kanhaiyapur village under Jarmundi police station in Dumka district. The petitioners, who are descendants of common ancestors, had sought partition of the disputed property through a suit filed in 1975.
The partition suit was subsequently transferred to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, in view of the applicable Santhal Pargana settlement provisions. The Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the suit in 1983 after finding that the parties had already separated their respective shares and had been independently possessing and cultivating the land.
The petitioners challenged the order before the Charge Officer, Dumka, but the appeal was dismissed in 1987. They then approached the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, who upheld the findings in 2007. A subsequent review petition was also rejected.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the authorities had failed to properly appreciate documentary and oral evidence and had relied excessively on oral testimony while concluding that the property had already been partitioned.
The State and private respondents opposed the plea, pointing out that three authorities had reached concurrent findings after examining the evidence.
Court finds oral partition proved
The High Court examined the findings of the revenue authorities and noted that the evidence indicated that the family members had been living separately and enjoying their respective portions of the property for several decades.
The court observed that although there was no written deed of partition, witnesses had supported the existence of an earlier family settlement. The records also indicated separate possession and cultivation of the respective portions.
The High Court noted that the parties had themselves admitted that they had been separately residing and enjoying the properties since before the Gantzer Settlement.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kale & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others, which recognises the validity of family settlements and the principle that an oral family arrangement can operate as a binding settlement in appropriate circumstances.
Article 226 is not an appellate jurisdiction
A key aspect of the judgment was the court’s reiteration of the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.
Justice Dwivedi referred to Supreme Court precedents holding that the High Court does not ordinarily act as an appellate court while exercising writ jurisdiction and cannot reweigh or reappreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible.
The court observed that interference may be justified where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence or where the authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction. In the present case, however, no such circumstance was established.
Since the Assistant Settlement Officer, Charge Officer and Commissioner had all reached substantially consistent conclusions, the High Court found no reason to interfere.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
