Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Meera Choudhary & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 25 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(C) No. 1171 of 2006
Dr. Meera Choudhary & Ors. .... .. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ... Respondents
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the respondents-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
......
09/ 25.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners- Dr. Meera Choudhary, Krishna Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy and
Chitralekha Sen have preferred the instant writ petition for quashing the arbitrary
demand made by the khas mahal Officer, Hazaribagh as contained in Memo
No.1087-R. Hazaribagh dated 14.07.2005 whereby in view of circular issued by
the then Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land
Reforms contained in Memo No.344 R. Patna dated 11.03.1983 the amount of
salami in Case of transfer has been enhanced up to 50% of the consideration
amount as per the market value.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that
Circular dated 11.03.1993 has been brought on record by the State in counter-
affidavit dated 06.11.2006, affidavited by one Surendra Kumar Verma, S/o Sri
Mani Verma, Circle Officer, Hazaribag being the authorized person in the counter-
affidavit. The said notification of the Government dated 11.03.1983 has been
assailed by the petitioner in a separate Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.980
of 2008 on the ground that in the initial lease deed executed in favour of ancestor
of the petitioners in the year, 1978, the assessment was made at annual rent of
Rs.241 and as per Clause-2 of the said lease, the same can be enhanced by 25% of
the annual rent, but that should not be less than 1 rupee and not more than 100
rupee, as such, in view of the agreement and in absence of any Clause with regard
to application of subsequent notification regarding enhancement of the rent, the
said notification dated 11.03.1983 is bad in law as the same cannot be applicable
on the lease which was granted in the year, 1978 and renewed in the year, 2003
with retrospective effect.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Dr. Rajat Nath Roy vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others dated
12.12.2008 in W.P.(C) No.6682 of 2004 and has submitted that the same order has
not been assailed by the State before the Hon'ble Division Bench, as such,
Interlocutory Application may be allowed to challenge the said notification dated
11.03.1983.
Learned counsel for the respondents- State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has
submitted that though the matter is old one, but counter-affidavit is required in I.A.
No.980/2008, as such, two weeks time may be granted to file counter-affidavit
sworn by competent person, who shall not be an officer less than the rank of
Deputy Secretary of the concerned Department after due approval from the
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land
Reforms, Government of Jharkhand.
Considering the same, three weeks time is granted to the State to file reply to
the Interlocutory Application as this issue is a serious issue for the State of
Jharkhand, as this Court has also directed the Revenue Department to prepare the
list of khas mahal land District wise and their latest position so as to consider this.
Let the matter appears after three weeks.
It is made clear, no further adjournment shall be granted to the State as
Interlocutory Application has been filed in the year, 2008. It was duty of the State
to file counter-affidavit, but since there is change in the panel lawyers, as such,
this Court is granted three weeks time by way of last chance.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
