Aspire Agro Industries vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2433 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Aspire Agro Industries vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P. (C) No. 150 of 2022
                              ---------

Aspire Agro Industries, a Proprietorship Firm, having its office at Beed Bunglow, Tatisilwai, P.O. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi, through its Proprietor Shri Devendra Nath Mahto, aged about 52 years, son of Indra Nath Mahto, resident of Beed Bunglow, Tatisilwai, PΡ.Ο. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi.

....Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Principal Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

3. Divisional Forest Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having Government of its office at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

4. Forester, Ranchi Forest Division, Ranchi, having its office at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

5. Forest Range Officer, Ranchi East Zone, Mahilong, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Mahilong, District Ranchi. ....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, Adv Mr. Om Prakash, Adv.

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to AAG-II

---------

C.A.V. ON: 03.12.2024 PRONOUNCED ON:06 /02/2025

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of illegal interference with the enjoyment and possession of the petitioner by the officers of the State of Jharkhand in respect to a piece of land situated at plot no. 1434, Khata No. 35, Mozart Hafatbera, Thana Angada, Thana No. 46, District Ranchi measuring 1.90 acres. The petitioner claims to have purchased the above piece of land by a registered sale deed dated 24 December 2021, which was executed by the erstwhile owners after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in terms of section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, in Miscellaneous Case No.12 of 2020-21 vide order dated 30th July 2021.

3. The brief fact of the case as it appears from the pleadings is that predecessor in interest was the recorded raiyati and their name stands recorded in the Cadastral Survey records issued in the year 1932. The vendors of the petitioner had got their name mutated in the records of the State Government and were regularly paying rent to the State Government, which has been accepted without any protest or demur till 25.09.2020, whereafter the same is not being accepted.

However, on 13.10.2020 one Shri Binod Kumar, claiming himself to be the Forester, Ranchi Forest Division came to the land in question and directed the petitioner to restrain himself from carrying out any kind of work over the land on the ground that the land was a forest land, and directed the petitioner to stop any kind of work over the land in question.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel representing the petitioner firm submits that since the copy of the notification dated 01.07.1955 has not been brought on record by the respondents; this court cannot rely only upon the statement made on the counter affidavit to non-suit the petitioner.

He further submits that it is not clear whether the notification was issued in terms of section 29 (1) or the proviso to section 29 (3) of the Indian Forest Act,1927 for the reason that notification issued under the proviso of section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act is issued without prejudice to the rights and contention of a person who is claiming ownership over the land and has been made subject to the final outcome of a survey and settlement being carried out by a competent Authority. In absence of any such material particulars being set out by the State Government in its counter affidavit, the case set up by the respondent-State of Jharkhand is liable to be disbelieved and its stand rejected.

5. He lastly submits that even if assuming there is a genuine dispute of title between the petitioner and the State of Jharkhand, since the petitioner admittedly is in possession, he cannot be denied of his right to enjoy and possess the property till the time, the State of Jharkhand is able to get its title declared and possession restored by instituting a suit before a court of competent civil jurisdiction. In support of the above contention, it has been further argued that the right to enjoy a property has been guaranteed by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the State of Jharkhand is prohibited from taking any coercive or unlawful measures to interfere with the petitioners' rights to enjoy and possess the property except in accordance with law.

6. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to AAG-II, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, in course of arguments has referred to a map annexed to the counter affidavit and submitted that it is beyond any doubt that the land is a forest land and therefore the petitioner who has unlawfully occupied a forest land cannot be permitted to use the same for any unlawful or non-forest purposes and also cannot be allowed to occupy the same and hence the action of the respondent State of Jharkhand in seeking to restrain the petitioner from carrying out any non-forest activity or dispossess the petitioner is justified.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and after going through the respective affidavits it appears that there is a genuine dispute of title over the land, which cannot be gone into by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. However, it is equally well settled that a person in settled possession of land coupled with the fact that there is a claim of title attached to such possession, cannot be removed by the State without following the due process of law. Recourse must be taken to the law of the land.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi versus State of H.P.1 has held that in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. The relevant para is quoted herein below:

"12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution."

In the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P.2, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A.

8. Since the respondent-State is the guardian of law of the land it cannot act as grabbers of property without any due process as established by law. Having regard to the settled principle of law, this Court is of the view that the petitioner who is admittedly in possession cannot be evicted from the land in question without following the due process of law, nor any kind of pressure be exerted on the petitioner for restraining him from the use of the land in any manner till the State of Jharkhand acting through its Department of Forest get its title declared from a court of competent civil jurisdiction.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land situated at plot no. 1434, Khata No. 35, Mouza Hafatbera, Thana Angada, Thana No. 46, District Ranchi

(2020) 2 SCC 569

(2022) 7 SCC 508 and are also restrained from disturbing the petitioner from using the land in any manner.

10. With the above observations and directions, and reserving liberty to the State Government to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised and subject to any bar created by law, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:06 /02/2025 Amardeep/-

AFR/