Jharkhand High Court
Mahabir Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 4 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 5882 of 2007
........
Mahabir Prasad Sharma .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :- Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents/State : Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate.
........
14/04.05.2022.
Learned counsel, Mr. Atul Kumar, on the instruction of learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari has submitted,
that the sole petitioner died during pendency of the writ petition, as
such, Vakalatnama executed by Mahabir Prasad Sharma in favour of
the counsel is ceased to function.
Learned counsel, Mr. Atul Kumar has further submitted that
the legal heirs of petitioner have not come before this Court to file
Vakalatnama as such, he has no instruction in the matter, although the
legal heirs have been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel, Mr. Ankit Vishal on the instruction of learned
counsel for the respondent no. 6, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has submitted,
that petitioner Mahabir Prasad Sharma has no interest in this matter
knowing fully well, that the order passed by the Additional Member,
Board of Revenue, Jharkhand affirming the order of Additional
Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jhamshedpur on 02.02.2006
in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 2/1989-90 is based on correct fact.
Learned counsel, Mr. Ankit Vishal has submitted that though
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila has passed an order
on 11.01.1990 in L.A. Case No. 1/1989-90 in favour of the writ
petitioner Mahabir Prasad Sharma, which has been set aside by the
learned appellate court and revisional court on the ground that
Section 16 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is not applicable as the land
in dispute is not an agricultural land, as claimed by writ petitioner,
claiming to be raiyat under Section 2(k) of the Act.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the court of LRDC,
Ghatshila has not considered the objection made by the opposite
party (respondent herein) that the aforesaid land is not agricultural
land, rather there is a house, over the land of Village - Sugniwas,
Thana no. 344, Khata No. 4 Plot No. 387, area 0.03 acres, Plot No.
388, area - 0.01 acres and the land of Village - Kankrisole, Thana
No. 345, Khata No. 29, Plot No. 429, area - 0.05 acres, total area
0.09 acres has been clearly mentioned in the sale deed, that type of
land is old parti kadim with a pucca house thereon, therefore, the land
in dispute does not belong to agricultural land, so as to invoke the
provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, as such, the order of the
LRDC was bad in law, which has been rightly set aside by the
learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur and affirmed by the Additional Member, Board of
Revenue, Jharkhand, which does not requires any interference by this
Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. P.C. Roy also
also affirmed the same and has submitted that proceeding under
Section 16(3) of the Act is not applicable as the order passed the
Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and
Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand are in accordance
with law, whereby the order of LRDC, Ghatshila has been set aside,
as such, this Court may not interfere.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
as the legal heirs of the petitioner has also lost interest as the legal
heirs have already been informed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to file application for substitution of the sole petitioner,
who died during pendency of the writ petiton, but the legal heirs have
not taken any interest and in view of merit of the case, which this
Court has perused that the sale deed specifies nature of land to be
residential, a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Act will not lie,
accordingly, this Court considered that the judgment passed by
Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand and Additional
Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, do not require
any interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending I.A. is hereby closed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
