Jharkhand High Court
Chhunu Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 28 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 71 of 2004
........
Chhunu Oraon .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner,
South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi & Ors. .... ..... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 3777 of 2003
Smt. Veena Rani Verma & Ors. .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : None
For the Resp- State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey A.C. to
Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, SC (L&C)-I
For the Private Respondent(s) : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
[In W.P.(C) No. 71 of 2004]
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C. to
Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, SC (L&C)-I
[In W.P.(C) No. 3777 of 2003]
........
21/28.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha
in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003 and as counsel for the private-respondent(s) in
W.P.(C) No.71/2004.
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.71/2004.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003, Mr.
Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that same order has been assailed by
both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.3777/2003 has assailed the impugned award, whereby the respondent-
Commissioner has directed the Special Officer, Sadar, Ranchi to consider
the market rate per Katha for payment of compensation under the second
proviso to Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that writ
petitioners namely, (1) Smt. Veena Rani Verma, W/o late Krishna Kant
Verma, (2) Dr. Radha Kant Verma, 4(i) Sudha Verma, W/o Late Mohan
Kant Verma, 4(ii) Mona Prasad, D/O Late Mohan Kant Verma, 4(iii)
Sonali Verma, D/o late Mohan Kant Verma and 4(iv) Mitu Verma, D/O
Late Mohan Kant Verma have preferred this writ petition on the ground
that the land was transferred after following the due process of law as the
the ancestors of the private- respondent no. 5 namely, Charli Linda and
respondent no.6 namely, Chunu Oroan have voluntarily surrendered 0.12
and ½ acres of land out of R.S. Plot No.1217, 0.15 acres out of R.S. Plot
No.1218 and 0.05 acres, out of R.S. Plot No.1219 of Khata No.28 before
the ex-landlord vide deed of surrender dated 24.01.1948 and the said land
was subsequently settled by the ex-landlord in favour of Uma Kant Sahay,
father-in-law of the petitioner no.1 and grand father of the petitioner nos.2
to 4 through registered deed of Chhaparbandi settlement dated 23.04.1948
putting the settlee in possession. The settlee constructed a pucca boundary
wall and after getting the plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipality in
the year 1948 constructed pucca residential building and other substantial
structures over the same in the year 1949 after investing more than
Rs.30,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the
property was also mutated before the Office of Circle Officer, Town
Anchal Ranchi Municipality in the year 1950 and to that effect, up-to-date
rent are being paid.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
invoking Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act, which has been amended w.e.f.
1969 (Bihar Regulation-I, 1969) is not applicable in the present case, in
view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Mangal
Oraon Vs. Mira Nayak(smt.) & Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 141 and
in the case of Fulchand Munda Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in
(2008) 14 SCC 774 = 2008 2 JCR (SC) 1 = 2008 1 JLJR (SC) 309 and in
the case of Situ Sahu & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported
in 2004 8 SCC 340 = 2004 4 JCR (SC) 211 = 2004 4 JLJR (SC) 109.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the
order of Commissioner remanding the matter before Special Officer,
Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi for computation of compensation at
the market rate under the second proviso of Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act
is itself not applicable and as such, the impugned order suffers from
illegality and contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court.
So far, the nature of land from agriculture to Chhaparbandi is
concerned, as the settlement has been made by the Zamindar to the
ancestor of the petitioners, vide Chhaparbandi settlement dated
23.04.1948, as such, in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench in the case of Ashwini Kumar
Roy Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1987 BLT (Writ) 532 = 1988 PLJR
180 = 1984 SCC online Patna Page-7, the order of the Commissioner
with regard to computation of compensation on the market rate under the
second proviso of Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act is not justified and the
same is contrary to the judgment passed by the Division Bench and the
Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C. to
Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I is present.
Since, nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.71/2004, this Court adjourned this matter to be listed after Durga Puja
Vacation.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
