Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Having ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3427 of 2017
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. having its corporate office at
Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.-
Ranchi, through its Law Officer Sri Mithlesh Kumar, son of Sri R.B.
Choudhary, Resident of Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist.-
Ranchi
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar,
Dist.- Hazaribagh
3. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, Dist.-
Hazaribagh
4. The Circle Officer, Sadar Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, Dist.-
Hazaribagh
5. Swarup Chatterjee, son of Sanant Chatterjee, resident of 111, Kali
Krishna Taigore Road, Alam Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Alam Bazar,
Kolkatta-700035
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated
28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in
Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 and also to quash the
order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner, North
Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Revision
No. 59 of 2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wrongly the
petitioner has made a prayer to quash the order dated 11.01.2017
passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division,
Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Revision No. 59 of 2013 and the
petitioner does not pray to quash the said order and confines his
prayer to quash the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of
2012 only.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.5 filed Rent
Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 against the order dated
14.08.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer,
Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Case No. 01 of 2009-10 whereby
the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the petition for assessment of
rent filed by the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 of this writ
petition was authorized by Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi, Champa
Haldhar and Malti Devi as their lawful attorney by executing
general power of attorney dated 03.09.2008 to do all the necessary
work including to manage, develop the land and to take steps for
revenue matters/assessment and the said four principals of the
said general power of attorney are the descendants of the
recorded tenant of the land in question namely Prafulla Nath
Thakur @ Tagore.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh found as per the Anchal
Amin report that some portion of the lands has been encroached
by other persons though the descendants of Prafulla Nath Thakur
@ Tagore have right, title over 8.75 ½ acres of land. Therefore, the
Circle Officer recommended for assessment of the rent of the land
in the names of the said four descendants of the original kewatdar -
Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that plot no. 654/1108 under khata
no.203 contains the building of the petitioner. The petitioner
submitted a letter to the circle officer which reveals that plot no.
1107 under khata no. 203 of area 2.95 acres is the land of the
Electricity Board. The S.D.O. held that the said four legal heirs of
the original kewatdar- Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore had no
possession over the land.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in the impugned
judgment observed that information received by the P.W.D. office
that plot no. 652/1108 of an area 2.70 acres under khata no. 204 is
the land situated for the building; contradicts the observation of
the S.D.O. that plot no. 652/1108 of an area 1.75 acres under khata
no. 204 is the land on which P.W.D. building is situated. The
Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh further considered that the
information received under Right to Information Act revealed that
the land measuring 0.33 acres of the plot no.1107 under khata no.
01 has been acquired for the office of building of Electricity Board
and this document contradicts the observation of the S.D.O. that
the land of plot no. 652/1108 under khata no. 203 has been
occupied by the building of the Electricity Board, Hazaribagh- the
petitioner and upon such observation, the Deputy Commissioner
held that the S.D.O. has wrongly mentioned in its order dated
14.08.2010 that circle officer has found possession of the petitioner
with regard to the land in question though the circle officer in no
uncertain terms has found the four legal representatives of the
original kewatdar- Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore to be in
possession of 5.07 acres out of 8.75 ½ acres of land consisting in
three different plots being (1) khata no. 202, plot no. 652/1108, (2)
khata no. 203 plot no. 652/1107 and (3) khata no. 204, plot no.
652/1106. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in its
impugned judgment also considered that hukumnama dated
20.05.1929 revealed that the then Deputy Commissioner granted
hukumnama in favour of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore settling
the land of khata no. 204, plot no. 652/1106 measuring 1.75 acres
to the said Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore in Settlement Case
No.611 of 1929-30 over which the circle officer found the said four
legal heirs of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore to be in possession
of. In respect of plot no.652/1108 measuring 3.39 ½ acres of land,
it was observed that Cadastral survey of the year 1911 shows that
under the ex-landlord Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore was the
owner of khewat no. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
also mentioned the details of genealogy of the said four
descendants of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore and directed the
circle officer to fix up rent for the assessment of the rent for the
lands measuring 8.75 ½ acres of the said four plots of land
realizable since the vesting of the Estate from the four descendants
of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore namely Sumita Tagore, Ratna
Devi, Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after
lapse of several decades, the respondent no.5 has made the
application before the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms
Deputy Collector. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner had been in legal physical
possession of the land situated at khata no.202, plot no. 652/1108
of which the respondent no.5 was not in physical possession. It is
further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Circle Officer, Sadar in his report stated that the land measuring
1.96 acres situated at khata no. 202, plot no. 1108 is in physical
possession of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner is
running in the record of rights. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came in possession
over 2.95 acres of land which includes the land measuring 1.46
acres under khata no. 202, plot no. 652/1108 in Mouza-
Cantolment, Thana no. 157 and the possession of the same was
handed over by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh
to the petitioner on 24.06.1982. It is next submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a coordinate Bench of this Court in
the common judgment in W.P. (C) No. 2353 of 2017, W.P. (C) No.
2364 of 2017, W.P. (C) No. 2543 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 2563 of
2017 has passed order dated 03.01.2024 in which the four private
persons whose names does not appear in the said Rent
Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh, has passed order, in respect of the
said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. It is
next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribagh is perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside
as the same has been passed on flimsy grounds. Hence, it is
submitted that the same be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 on the other
hand opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 28.05.2013
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Rent
Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012. It is submitted by the learned
senior counsel for the respondent no.5 that this writ petition is bad
in law as the four persons namely Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi,
Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi in whose favour the impugned
judgment in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 has been
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, have not been
impleaded as respondents and behind their back, no adverse
order can be passed making them aggrieved. It is also submitted
by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 that Public
Work Department has started illegal construction over the land in
question and W.P. (C) No. 1327 of 2017 was filed for restraining
the Road Construction Department, Road Division, Hazaribagh
from constructing structure over the raiyati land of the
respondents and a coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.03.2017
without going into the merits of the case directed the competent
authority/Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to consider the
representation of the petitioner of the said W.P. (C) No.1327 of
2017 in accordance with the law after verification of the relevant
records. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.5 that the petitioner has not brought any chit of
paper regarding the acquisition of the land in question. It is
further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.5 that Annexure-1 and 2 which is purported to be
the document regarding acquisition does not bear any khata
number and certainly they are not the lands which is subject
matter of the Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012; therefore
Annexure-1 and 2 are the relevant documents so far as this writ
petition is concerned. Hence, it is submitted that there being no
merit in this writ petition, the same be dismissed.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent
to mention here that as rightly submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the respondent no.5; the four legal heirs namely
Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi, Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi who
are undisputedly, the legal heirs of Prafulla Nath Thakur @
Tagore- who is the undisputed kewatdar of the Estate have not
been impleaded as parties to this writ petition though the
impugned judgment of this Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of
2012 dated 28.05.2013 has been passed in their favour. As rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that the
alleged land notification acquisition filed by the petitioner as
Annexure-1 and 2 does not bear any khata number and the same
falls short of establishing that they are the documents in respect of
the land which is subject matter of Rent Assessment Appeal No.19
of 2012. The Circle Officer, Hazaribagh has in no uncertain
manner mentioned that the land which is subject matter of Rent
Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 stands recorded in the revenue
record in the name of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore as kewatdar
who is ancestor of the said four surviving legal heirs of him.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality
in the order passed by the respondent no.2- Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh in allowing the rent assessment
appeal. Further as the said four legal heirs of Prafulla Nath
Thakur @ Tagore have not been impleaded as respondents in this
writ application, without any rhyme or reason, even though
setting aside the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of
2012 will affect them adversely, hence, for this reason also the
prayer made in this writ petition as already indicated above in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgment; cannot be allowed. Thus,
this writ application is dismissed being without any merit.
12. The petitioner if they so desire may approach the appropriate
civil court if they are under the impression that any cloud has
been cast by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
on their claimed title over the land in respect of which Rent
Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 has been passed. But it is made
clear that this court has not expressed any opinion regarding the
merits of the claim of the petitioner, regarding his title over the
land in question.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 11th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
