Jharkhand High Court
Kiran Lala @ Kiran Bala Lala vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 5 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1315 of 2006
Kiran Lala @ Kiran Bala Lala ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Sr. S.C. III
---
09/05.04.2023 Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
present case, there is a dispute of title. He has submitted that there are
two points of law involved:
i. Whether summary proceeding under BPLE is maintainable
when there is serious title dispute in connection with the property
involved in this case?
ii. Whether the respondents can rely upon the notification
issued under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, when the transfer of the land
involved in this case had taken place prior to issuance of notification
dated 23.11.1979?
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
title suit was decided in favour of the husband of the petitioner on
26.05.1969 and the predecessor in interest of the husband of the
petitioner had acquired the property by virtue of the hukumnama dated
31.05.1952. The learned counsel submits that there was an agreement
of sale between the husband of the petitioner with Phul Mati Devi
coupled with possession of her husband . A title suit was also filed and
ultimately it was decided in favour of the husband of the petitioner. He
has also submitted that in the year 1981, the husband of the petitioner
had gifted the property involved in this case to the present petitioner
by way of registered deed of gift. He has also submitted that the
property stood mutated in the name of the husband of the petitioner /
the present petitioner and they have been in possession of the property
since long. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings under Bihar
Public Land Encroachment Act was itself not maintainable. If the
State has to get the property, it was for the State to go and file title suit
for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He has submitted
that such bonafide dispute in connection with title cannot be decided
in a summary proceeding under BPLE Act.
3. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134 para 5, 8, 9 and
10; AIR 2019 SC 1692 para 65 to 71, 82 and judgment reported in
2018 (2) JCR 486 (Jhr) para 8 and 9.
4. The learned counsel has also submitted that the notification in
connection with the property which was issued on 23.11.1979 was not
in possession of the petitioner and therefore, they have challenged the
same by virtue of the interlocutory application. He has also submitted
that the required procedure for issuance of notification dated
23.11.1979 was not followed and therefore, the same is not binding
upon the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that the title of
the petitioner / her husband/predecessor in interest stood crystalized
much before and therefore, the notification dated 23.11.1979 has no
impact so far as right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner is
concerned. The learned counsel has also relied upon the para 9 and 22
of the counter-affidavit . It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit
that the land was acquired by the State Government as surplus land of
ex-land lord under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 vide gazette
notification dated 23.11.1979.
5. Learned counsel State on behalf of the other hand has submitted
that on the face of the notification which has been issued under the
aforesaid Act of 1961 dated 23.11.1979 , it is itself sufficient to show
that the land was public land and therefore, there is no disputed
question of title as such is involved in the present case. He submits
that as long as the said notification is valid there is no question of
holding that there is any disputed question of title involved. The
learned counsel has also submitted that the transfer and the manner in
which the petitioner is claiming title has to be adjudicated upon a suit
which may be filed by the petitioner, but as on date, the impugned
proceeding and orders do not call for any interference.
6. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the impugned notice on the basis of which the proceeding was
initiated simply mentioned that the petitioner has constructed a house
on government land (Annexure - 21 of the writ petition).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary
affidavit before this Court in the midst of the proceedings. The learned
counsel for the State has objected to the supplementary affidavit and
has submitted that the case may be decided on the basis of material
available on record. However, on strenuous submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is taken on record.
8. It is observed that although a number of judgments have been
referred in para 7 of the supplementary affidavit, but the judgments
which have been cited by the petitioner during the course of hearing
has already been recorded above and the remaining judgments have
not been cited by the petitioner during the course of hearing.
9. Arguments concluded .
10. Post this case for judgment on 13.06.2023.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
