Jharkhand High Court
Rohne Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2676 of 2021
Rohne Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through Arindam Sinha,
Manager- Legal, Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors.
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG
-----
02/02.08.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
Considering the issue involved in the present writ petition,
let notices be issued to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the present.
Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG, appears and waives
notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. He prays for and is
allowed six weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit on
behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Necessity of issuance of notice to rest of the respondents
including the private respondents shall be considered after filing of the
counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Put up this case under appropriate heading in the week
commencing from 20.09.2021.
In the meantime, the counsel for the petitioner shall remove
the defects as pointed out by the office.
I.A. No. 3631 of 2021
The present interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner seeking stay of operation/implementation of
order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the
concerned Minister, Government of Jharkhand in Misc. Case No.
275/2019 purportedly exercising powers under Section 49(5) [wrongly
typed as Section 49(1)] of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, whereby
the respondent no. 2 - the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has been
directed to restore 20.46 acres of land and to issue the rent receipts in
favour of concerned raiyats after making correction in revenue records of
several plots relating to Khata No. 183 situated at Village-Barbania,
Pargana-Karnpura, Thana No. 108, P.S.-Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh,
which was acquired by the petitioner vide registered sale deed no.
5778/5251 of 2011 dated 07.05.2011.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner
while assailing the impugned order dated 09.02.2021, submits that the
competent authority (i.e., the Minister in the present case) cannot pass
an order for restoration of land directly under Section 49(5) of the Act,
1908, rather a direction may be given to the concerned Deputy
Commissioner to take further necessary action under Section 46(4-A) of
the Act, 1908. Moreover, the Minister, Government of Jharkhand had
illegally initiated the said proceeding under Section 49(5) of the Act,
1908, as while transferring the land to the petitioner under Section 49(1)
of the Act, 1908, there was no fraud and misrepresentation on its part so
as to invoke the provisions of Section 49(5) of the said Act. Since the
Minister, Government of Jharkhand while passing the impugned order
dated 09.02.2021 has cancelled the jamabandi of the land in question
running in favour of the petitioner and has further directed the
respondent no. 2 to restore the land in favour of the concerned raiyats
and to issue rent receipts in their favour after making necessary
correction in the revenue records, the petitioner will suffer immense loss
and irreparable injury.
Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG, while opposing the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is
apparent from the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 itself that since the
date of transfer, no mining activity has been done by the petitioner over
the land in question. In fact, the concerned coal block earlier allotted to
the petitioner was cancelled in terms of the judgments dated 25.08.2014
and 24.09.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of "Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. the Principal Secretary & Ors."
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 516 and (2014) 9 SCC 614. Moreover, it
would be evident from factual observation made in the impugned order
dated 09.02.2021 that the concerned raiyats are still in possession of the
land in question. Since the coal block allotted to the petitioner has
already been cancelled, there is no justification on the part of the
petitioner to pray for an interim order in the present case.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
content of the writ petition as well as the present interlocutory
application. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated
09.02.2021 passed by the concerned Minister, Government of Jharkhand
mainly on the ground that he had no jurisdiction under Section 49(5) of
the Act, 1908 to himself adjudicate the matter and to cancel the transfer
of land made by the concerned raiyats in favour of the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the departmental
Minister while exercising the power under Section 49(5) of the Act, 1908
can at best direct the respondent no. 2 to take necessary action under
Section 46(4-A) of the Act, 1908. On the other hand, the learned AC to
AG has submitted that it is not a case in which interim order is needed in
favour of the petitioner as the departmental Minister while passing the
impugned order dated 09.02.2021 has categorically stated that the land
in question were never used by the petitioner for mining purposes, the
allotment of which was cancelled in terms with judgments rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Manohar Lal Sharma"
(supra). It has also been recorded in the impugned order dated
09.02.2021 that the concerned raiyats are still in possession of the said
land.
It appears from the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 that
in addition to cancelling the transfer of land earlier made in favour of the
petitioner as well as the jamabandi of the same running in its favour, the
departmental Minister has directed the respondent no. 2 to restore the
land in favour of the raiyats and to issue them rent receipts after making
necessary correction in the revenue records. Since the jurisdiction of the
departmental Minister in exercising power under Section 49(5) of the Act,
1908 is still to be considered by this Court and if during the pendency of
the writ petition, the revenue records are changed by the authorities by
re-entering the name of the concerned raiyats relating to the land in
question and the rent receipts are issued in their favour, the same would
create further complications in the matter.
Hence, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as
existing today over the land in question till further order of this Court.
I.A. No. 3631 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
