Jharkhand High Court
Lalit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 1 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W. P. (C) No. 7336 of 2011
Lalit Kumar .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 2919 of 2011
........
Ketan Anand Verma & Anr. .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ..... Respondents
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
[Through- Video Conferencing]
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate. (in W.P.(C) No.7336/2011)
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (in W.P.(C) No.2919/2011)
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A.-I (in W.P.(C) No.2919/2011)
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C.
to Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, S.C.-V (in W.P.(C) No.7336/2011)
For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (in W.P.(C) No.7336/2011)
Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate (in W.P.(C) No.2919/2011)
..........
18 / 01.12.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (in W.P.(C)
No.7336/2011) has sent to this Court brief facts of the case at Paras 1 to 17, which
may profitably be quoted herein :-
1.That the khas Mahal lease was originally granted in the name of Late
Karuna Prasad and Late Arunjay Prasad in the year 1958 for a period
of 30 years.
2.That before expiry of the said period of 30 years, an application for
renewal was made before the Khas Mahal Officer in terms of the
original lease and accordingly, by terms of order dated 28.06.1994, the
Khas Mahal Officer recommended for renewal of lease for a further
period of 30 years and forwarded the file to Additional Collector.
3.That the said matter remained pending with respect to renewal of
lease before the Additional Collector to the best of the knowledge of the
petitioner.
4.That the petitioner came to know that a proceeding has been initiated
for granting lease in favour of the respondent (original tenant of the
petitioners) in Mutation Case No.137/87-88, for which a proposal was
made by the Additional Collector before the Deputy Commissioner on
12.01.2001 for grant of lease in favour of the private respondent.
5. That when the said matter in relation to the Mutation Case
No.137/87-88 was pending, the respondent filed a writ petition bearing
W.P.[C] No.6679/20078, which was disposed by order dated 06.07.2009
directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the said case bearing
Mutation Case No. 137/87-88 after hearing the parties.
[That petitioner for the first time came to know that Deputy Secretary of
the State have issued a letter dated 06.04.1999 to the Deputy
Commissioner, in which it has been stated that the lease of the
petitioner which has lapsed on 21.03.1988 has been cancelled.]
[That under the provisions of Khas Mahal Manual no power has been
given to the Deputy Secretary of the State to issue such kind of of letter
and therefore, the said letter is without jurisdiction.]
6.That since the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6679 /2007 was
disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide Mutation
Case No.137/87-88 after hearing the parties, the Deputy Commissioner
by his detailed order dated 18.03.2011 by which the Khas Mahal
Officer have been directed to renew the lease for a further period of 30
years and have rejected the case of the respondent.
7.That the it is relevant to state that the original lessee and his heirs are
in possession of the land in question and the respondent tenant/
objector is not in possession of the land in question.
8.That the Deputy Commissioner also observed in the order dated
18.03.2011 that the Khas Mahal Officer was directed to conduct spot
inquiry, upon which the Khas Mahal Officer visited the site on
18.09.2009 and found that the legal heirs of original lessee is in
possession which has been communicated to the Deputy Commissioner.
Points of Argument.
9.The letter dated 06.04.1999 has been issued by Under Secretary/
Deputy Secretary of the State Government who has no jurisdiction in
the matter relating to Khas Mahal Lands and the said letter is without
jurisdiction.
10.That it is admitted in W.P.[C] No.7336 /2011 that the letter dated
06.04.1999 has been issued without hearing the petitioner and without
giving any notice to the petitioner which is admitted in the counter-
affidavit [Para-17].
11.That in Para-20 of the aforesaid writ i.e. W.P.(C) No.7336/2011, it
has been stated that letter dated 06.04.1999 has been passed without
giving opportunity, notice or hearing to the petitioner and without
making any inquiry as to about the alleged violation of terms and
conditions which is the basis of letter dated 06.04.1999. [In reply to the
said para, para-22 of the counter states that the said letter dated
06.04.1999 has been passed by the Government on perusal of the
original record of Mutation Case No.137/87-88 (the said Mutation Case
No.137/87-88 has ultimately been decided in favour of the petitioner
Lalit Kumar and others) and therefore, the basis of letter dated
06.04.1999 is Mutation Case No.137/87-88 which has been decided in
favour of the petitioner].
12.That so far as W.P.(C) No.2919/2011 is concerned, it is stated that
father of the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.2919 of 2011 was a tenant of the
original lessee.
13.That the order dated 28.06.1994 was never challenged nor has ever
been set aside by which recommendation have been made by the Khas
Mahal Officer for renewal of lease after 1988 for a period of 30 years
which was passed on the basis of application of the original lessee for
renewal.
14.That the order of Deputy Commissioner is well-reasoned order and
after getting the possession verified through Khas Mahal Officer and
the letter and order contained in Annexure-4 dated 24.05.1999,
27.05.1999 and 12.01.2001 are all based upon the official letter of State
Government dated 06.04.1999 which has been issued without
jurisdiction by the Under Secretary /Deputy Secretary of the State and
after considering these letters, this Hon'ble Court directed the Deputy
Commissioner to visit the place after giving notice. Pursuant to which,
Deputy Commissioner decided the matter by order dated 18.03.2011.
15.That from perusal of judgment of Eviction Suit No.09/2009, it is
evident that the land in question is not in possession of the writ
petitioner of W.P.[C] No.2919 of 2011, rather the same was in
possession of one Qurban Quraishi against whom Eviction Suit was
filed by the writ petitioner (Satya Pal Verma), in which the defendant
namely Qurban Quraishi have taken a stand that he is a tenant of legal
heirs of original lessee of Lalit Kumar and others and after the full-
fledged trial, the issue of relation of landlord and tenant was decided
against Satya Pal Verma, writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.3263 /2016 and
the Eviction suit was dismissed.
16.That it is relevant to state that Qurban Quraishi who was the tenant
have vacated the suit premises and the suit premises is in possession of
the legal heirs of the original lessee.
17.That from the aforesaid, it is evident that Satya Pal Verma is not in
possession of the land in question and therefore, the Deputy
Commissioner have rightly rejected his claim and have directed the
Khas Mahal Officer to renew the lease in favour of the legal heirs of
original lessee. "
3. Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus,
submitted that litigation in eviction Suit between the tenant of the writ petitioner,
namely, Satya Pal Verma and one Qurban Quraishi has been decreed in favour of the
writ petitioner i.e. original lessee who is in possession of the same.
4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner /legal heirs
of Satya Pal Verma, namely, Ketan Anand Verma and Chetan Anand Verma by filing
another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2919/2011 has submitted that tenants are in
possession of the land, in question and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms
of order dated 17.10.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.2919/2011 directed the parties to
maintain the status-quo as on today.
5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further
submitted that original lease agreement executed in favour of father of writ petitioner
-Lalit Kumar in W.P. [C] No.7336/2011 has not been brought on record, as such, the
petitioner may be directed to bring the same on record.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned A.C. [to Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, S.C.-V (in W.P.
(C) No.7336/2011)] has submitted that counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 4 sworn and filed by Ranjana Burman, W/o Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram,
L.R.D.C., Medini Nagar, Palamau, whereby it has been stated that the petitioner has
challenged the order of the Government of Jharkhand, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, as contained in
Letter No.8/KM 553 R dated 06.04.1999, as such, he wants the same to be quashed.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned A.C. appearing for the State has further
submitted that in Para-15 of the said counter-affidavit, it has specifically been stated
that the order dated 06.04.1999 of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department has
been challenged in this case and the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are putting their objection
against the petitioner vide Mutation Case No.137/87- 137/87-88. It is not admitted
that the present petitioner had no knowledge of the order dated 06.04.1999 for long
ten years. It is for him to prove this fact. The absence of knowledge for such long
period is not admitted.
8. Mr. Ashok Yadav, learned G.A.-I appearing for the State (in analogous matter
I.e. W.P.(C) No.2919/2011)] has submitted that counter-affidavit on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been again sworn by Ranjana Burman, W/o Shree
Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram, and has stated in Para-9 of the counter-affidavit which
may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"9.That in reply to paragraph-8 of the writ application, it is stated and
submitted that it is a disputed question of title, possession of a tenant is only
permissive possession in the eye of law. Such possession, even if claimed to be
continuing, cannot be treated as perfecting any right of a tenant in the
property."
9. Under the circumstances and considering that the dispute has cropped up
because of ineffectiveness on the part of the State officials, this Court directs the
learned counsel for the State to clarify the stand of the State by filing supplementary
counter-affidavit duly sworn by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi with
respect to the Khas Mahal land on the following points :-
(i) Why the Additional Collector, Medani Nagar, Palamau has not passed any
order on the recommendation made by the Khas Mahal Officer on 28.06.1994 in
accordance with law and what are the procedures to dispose of such
recommendations?
(ii) Without cancelling or without passing any order on the recommendation of
the Khas Mahal officer dated 28.06.1994 or before cancelling the lease, how
Mutation case No.137/87-88 for which proposal has been made by the Additional
Collector before the Deputy Commissioner on 12.01.01 for grant of lease in favour
of Sri Satya Pal Verma has been issued by the State Authorities?
(iii) Whether the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department has any
authority to cancel the lease of the original petitioner i.e. father of the petitioner- Lalit
Kumar in terms of the order dated 06.04.1999 on the ground that the same has got
lapsed on 21.03.1998?
(iv) Whether the same Deputy Secretary has passed similar order of
cancellation of lease on the ground of elapse of time as on 06.04.1999 in other lease
hold property?
(v) Once the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the recommendation made
by the Additional Collector for grant of lease of Khas Mahal land in favour of private
respondent(s) i.e. Sri Satya Pal Verma, father of writ petitioners, Ketan Anand Verma
& Chetan Anand Verma, why the Deputy Commissioner has not passed order on the
earlier recommendation made by the Khas Mahal Officer on 28.06.1994?
(vi) What steps have been taken by the State to protect the Khas Mahal land?
If the lease expired on 21.03.1988, why no action has been taken soon thereafter by
the State? This shows that the State has no control over the Khas Mahal land as on
today also, as such, the State Authority shall prepare list of Khas Mahal land on
following terms: Date of Lease, Name of Lessee, Date of Expiry of the Lease,
Whether renewed or not?, What is the present status?, In whose possession the
leasehold property is lying and whether it is in accordance with law?
(vii) If the cancellation has been made on the basis of an allegation that there is
violation of terms and conditions of the Khas Mahal Lease Agreement, then whether
the State has verified that which of the Khas Mahal land has been mis-utilized or the
terms and conditions have been violated by the original lessee by letting it on rent for
residential purposes which has been termed to be as commercial activities for the
original lessee?
10. Mr. Ashok Yadav, learned G.A.-I appearing for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar
Singh, learned AC to SC-V appearing in their respective cases have submitted that 8
weeks' time may be granted so as to comply the same in its true spirit.
11. Considering the same, list this case after 8 weeks.
12. The Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to file the list with regard to
recent position of all the khas mahal land(s) in the State of Jharkhand District-wise
that in whose favour the lease was granted and when it was renewed and in whose
favour; what was the relationship with the original lessee and when it has expired and
whether the same has been renewed or not?
13. This Court has earlier granted six months time in M.A. No.631 of 2017 to the
State to prepare such list of Khas Mahal land(s) in terms of the order dated
11.06.2021 on the request of the State, which is going to be elapsed by 10th
December, 2021.
14. However, it is made clear that if in the next period of 8 weeks, the entire order
is not complied with by the State, this Court will pass necessary order as the Court
cannot be a mute spectator of such things, which have enhanced the litigation with
respect to Khas Mahal land.
15. In the meantime, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7336 of 2011 is also directed to
file copy of the lease agreement granted to his father i.e. original lessee in the year
1958 for a period of 30 years by the then State of Bihar.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Additional Secretary, Land, Revenue and
Registration, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as well as the Deputy Commissioner,
Palamau at once.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Office of the
learned Advocate General, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi at once.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
