The Jharkhand High Court criticised the state revenue officials for not acting on the Court decree even after 18 years.

The Court stated that the State should have suo moto corrected the revenue records immediately after the First Appellate judgment or at least after the dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court.
The bench of Justice Ananda Sen while rebuking the official observed, “Due to these types of officials, litigations are increasing and the poor common man is not getting the relief in time, which they are entitled to.”
In the present case, the first Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the Petitioner, Surendra Prasad Choudhary which was instituted by his ancestors. After appeals by the private defendants, it reached the Supreme Court which upheld the order of the first Appellate Court confirming the right, title, interest, and
possession of the Petitioner over the suit property.
The Petitioner approached the High Court with this Writ Petition ventilating their grievance against the state. It is their case that inspite of the aforesaid judgments and orders, rent receipts were not issued in favour of the petitioners, which was stopped during the pendency of the Civil Suit / Appeal. Hence, depriving the petitioner of the fruits of the decree.
Advocate Ramawatar Choubey appeared for the Petitioner and AAG-I Darshana Poddar Mishra appeared for the respondents.
The Court observed that President of India Draupadi Murmu acknowledged during the inauguration of the new Jharkhand High Court building that people often do not reap the benefits of decrees even after winning their cases.
“Thus, the feeling of the First Citizen of the country gets relevance in the facts of this case.”Court stated after going through facts.
The defence of the state that because of another suit on the same property in question against the Petitioner by the Respondent, the State did not take steps in respect of issuance of rent receipts was found frivolous by the Court.
The state argued that Petitioner approached after 12 years from the judgment therefore, is not entitled to relief. He went on to blame the petitioner for laches on his part. “If paragraph 46 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court is read, 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.”
Court stated.
The Court observed that since the possession of the petitioner and/or his ancestors was already 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.”Court stated.
The Court directed the state to implement the orders given by the Appellate Court and submit a report to the Court. Additionally, it mandated the attendance of the Revenue Secretary and Chief Secretary of Jharkhand in case such orders were not complied with.

The Court instructed the case to be listed under the heading “For orders” for the next hearing.
Cause Title: Surendra Prasad Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Ramawatar Choubey
Respondent: AAG-I Darshana Poddar Mishra, AC to AAG Rohit, Adv. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari

Jharkhand High CourtJustice Ananda Sen

Tanveer Kaur