Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2114 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 2797 of 2020
                              ........

Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel & Anr. ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate.

For the respondents/State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ..........

06/09.06.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Krishna Murari assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Raj Vardhan has submitted, that from perusal of annexure-7, which is at page 45 to the writ petition, it appears that In-charge Officer, Baba Baidhnath Mandir, Deoghar has written a letter to the petitioner No.1, Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel for utilising his land for Shravani mela. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 has consulted the District Collector, Deoghar and has submitted application.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that petitioner No.1, Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel has submitted in his application before the District Collector, Deoghar that he has entered into an agreement to sale a part of the said premises to Ravindra Kumar, son of Vibhuti Charan Sirangari, resident of Bilasi, Town Deoghar, District- Deoghar. However, if the Government of Jharkhand intends to acquire the said property, no later than 10 days of receipt hereof, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to deal with the property in such manner as he deem fit and proper.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel has further submitted in his application that described property is his property to deal with in such manner as he deem fit and proper. His such right to deal with property has been preserved by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No.6184/2014 and L.P.A. No.364/2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that on 22.09.2017 the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate-cum- Member Baba Baidyanath dham Mandir, Basukinath Shrine Board has written a letter to the Secretary, Tourism Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi- cum- Member Secretary, Baba Baidyanath dham, Basukinath Pilgrimage

Development Corporation to acquire the said land vide his letter dated 22.09.2017 as contained in Memo No.311/ Mandir and thereafter a land acquisition proceeding was initiated vide Land Acquisition Case No.01/2017- 2018, but it is strange to the petitioners that same Deputy Commissioner, Rahul Kumar, who is putting his signature to acquire the land has found the jamabandi to be suspicious.

This shows the highhandedness of such officer as because the matter has already been clarified by the single Judge and Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6184/2014 and L.P.A. No.364/2015, but the same Deputy Commissioner, who has written letter to the Principle Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Jharkhand to acquire the land in question has initiated a land acquisition proceeding. It appear that officers concerned in the rank of Deputy Commissioner are not clear about the previous order on record and they are passing orders as per their whim.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-12 to the writ petition, whereby provisions under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar /Jharkhand Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been invoked to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioners in Mauza- Chowkchandni, Thana No.414, Khata No.154, Nathbadi by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in view of record of Case No.01/2017-2018, which is bad in law in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.59/2019, as such, the impugned action taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition are also bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III has submitted, that four weeks time may be granted, so as to file detail counter-affidavit regarding action taken by the same Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, Mr. Rahul Kumar and by the present Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar explaining that how such power can be invoked.

Considering the same, learned counsel for the respondents/State is directed to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

Put up this case on 12.07.2022 under the same heading. Till then, operation of order contained in Annexures-10, 11, 12 shall remain stayed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/