Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jain Trading Corporation vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 3371 of 2011
M/s Jain Trading Corporation, a Partnership Firm, Demotand, Hazaribagh,
through its Partner, Pratap Jain .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
3.The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh
4.The Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
M/s Priyanka Dayal & Ankit Anand, Advs.
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr.SC-II
......
C.A.V. on 24.08.2023. Pronounced on 31.08.2023.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Additional
Collector, Hazaribagh as contained in Letter No.629 dated 07.05.2010 whereby
and whereunder the application for recognizing the petitioner as raiyat has been
rejected.
2. The petitioner claims to have purchased the 4.50 acres of land of Plot No.1, under
Khata No.63 of Village- Dembu, P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh by registered
sale deed executed on 21.11.1966. After the said purchase, the said land was duly
mutated in the name of the petitioner and the rent receipt was issued. The
petitioner continued in possession over the said land, in question and established
a Petrol Pump. The raiyati status of the petitioner was recognized and the rent
was sought to be enhanced for commercial use of the plot. The enhancement was
challenged in CWJC No.1748 and 3802 of 1992 (R). The order of enhancement
of rent was set aside by the Hon'ble Judicature of Patna, Ranchi Bench vide order
dated 22.03.1999.
3. It is submitted that 22 decimals of the said 4.50 acre land was acquired by the
National Highway Authority for widening of N.H.33 in which no compensation
has been paid for the land of the petitioner. It was against this background that
the petitioner submitted an application on 12.03.2010 before the Circle Officer,
Sadar, Hazaribagh for issuance of raiyati status with regard to land, in question
on which no action was taken. When information was sought under R.T.I. Act,
the Circle Officer vide Memo No.1015 dated 15.09.2010 informed the Petitioner
that his application has been rejected on 05.07.2010. The said order of rejection
is under-challenge in the instant Writ Petition.
4. The petitioner had acquired right, title which was duly recognized by the State,
but on acquisition, the compensation has not been paid without any reasonable
basis.
5. Learned Sr. S.C.-II for the State has opposed the prayer and contested the case.
The main stand of the State is that the nature of the land, in question for which
raiyat status is being claimed was recorded in the cadastral survey record of
rights as stated in Para-8 of the counter-affidavit as Gairmajarua khas land and
the nature of the land was Jungle Jhari. The said nature of land by operation of
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 vested in the State and, therefore, the property
with respect to Khata No.63 is the property of the State. It is submitted that there
is no document in support of a valid mutation order passed in any mutation Case.
The entry in Register II was made without any mutation order. It has however,
not been disputed that the petitioner is paying revenue to the State since the year
1998.
6. It is further, submitted by learned Sr. S.C.-II for the State that the matter does
not involve cancellation of jamabandi, but is concerned with the non-payment of
the compensation amount. The following documents were not furnished,
namely:-
(i) The deed of settlement of the ex-landlord & return filed by him;
(ii) There should be continuous jamabandi for the period of 30 years after the
recent survey till the date of land acquisition;
(iii) Continuous revenue receipt issued till 31.03.1957 by the Ex-landlord;
(iv) Revenue receipt issued till the year 1965 by the orders of the Circle
Officer;
(v) The opening of Jamabandi by the order of the SDO since the year 1965.
7. In reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order under-
challenge is the letter of the Additional Collector dated 05.07.2010 by which the
raiyati recognition certificate has been denied to the petitioner. This order is
based on rejection by the Deputy Commissioner which is a non-speaking order
dated 02.07.2010 and the same has been filed along with the counter-affidavit
and the letter of the Additional Collector dated 30.06.2010.
8. It is submitted that the non-speaking order of the Deputy Commissioner is in the
teeth of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the judgment
reported in 2010 (4) SCC 785 at Para-10 State was estopped by the principle of
estoppel. The judgment, 2007(10) SCC 238 is relied in this context.
9. The moot point for consideration is whether there is a provision for issuing a
raiyati certificate and whether there in any procedure laid down for issuing of
such a certificate?
10. This Court is of the view that there is no provision for issuance of raiyati
certificate. Whether a person is a tenant or not can be inferred from the relevant
documents of the revenue records and the revenue receipts. A certificate issued
with respect is not required under Section 3 C of the National High Way
Authority Act any person aggrieved by the order of land acquisition can raise
objection before the competent authority against the said acquisition . It is
apparent from the pleadings and the submissions advanced that Petitioner is
aggrieved for non-payment of compensation of the 22 decimals of land acquired
by the National Highway Authority of India. Instead of moving the competent
authority against the said acquisition, the Petitioner appears to have filed petition
for grant of raiyati certificate.
In the absence of any specific provision for grant of such a certificate,
this Court in its exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot direct for issuance of
such a certificate. Where there is a specific provision laid down under a
statute for getting compensation, this Court cannot allow the ingenuous
method to get it through the writ Court dehors the said procedure laid down
under the Land Acquisition Act. It has been held in Union of India v.
Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69 that in matters of land acquisition by
the NHAI scope of judicial review is very limited.
I do not find any merit in the instant petition.
Writ Petition stands dismissed.
I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated 31.08.2023
NAFR/Sandeep/
Uploaded.
