Mahendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2757 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mahendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 February, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P. (C) No. 4244 of 2024
                               ---------

Mahendra Kumar Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o late Panchanan Singh, R/o Q. No. DT 2497, Tanki Side, PO & PS Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834004;

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834004;

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Office at District Collectorate, Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, PO Kutchery, PS Sadar, Ranchi, Jharkhand;

4. The Circle Officer, Hehal Circle, Office at Ratu Road, PO & PS Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

  For the Petitioner      : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Adv.
  For the Resp.-State     : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
                               ---------
C.A.V. ON: 12.12.2024                  PRONOUNCED ON:20/02/2025

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioner praying therein for quashing the Order dated

27.12.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Ranchi, wherein the claim of the petitioner for removal of land

bearing Sub Plot No. 183/A (R.S. Plot No. 183), Sub-Plot No.

183/A/1 under Khata No. 113/119, P.S. No. 140 in Mauza Bajra,

Anchal Hehal, PS Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi admeasuring 5

(five) decimals from the "Prohibited List" has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the subject matter

of the dispute is related to land bearing Sub Plot No. 183/A (R.S.

Plot No. 183), Sub-Plot No. 183/A/1 under Khata No. 113/119

that was purchased by the father of the petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 12.09.1985 and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was

duly entered in the Register II. When the petitioner tried to sell the

subject land, he was informed in the Registry Office that the

subject land has been put in the "Prohibited List" and was further

not responded by the Resp. No. 2 and 3 against his representation

made to them, the petitioner had filed a writ petition WP(C) No.

273 of 2023.

Thereafter, when the respondent authorities did not

comply with the order, the petitioner filed a contempt application

and during midst of the proceeding the State authorities have

passed a reasoned order. Finally, this Court vide its order dated

10.05.2024 disposed of Cont. Case 15 of 2024 with liberty to the

Petitioner to challenge the Reasoned Order dated 27.12.2023

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi rejecting the claim of

petitioner for removal of the subject land from the "Prohibited

List".

3. The issue in the present writ application is squarely

covered by the judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed in

W.P.(C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of

Jharkhand). For brevity, relevant paragraphs are extracted

hereinbelow:

"9. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be appropriate to examine the important issues involved in the instant writ petition:

(I) Whether the entry of the land in the prohibited list of NGDRS has civil consequences?

(II) Whether the Respondent-State can put the land in the prohibited list under NGDRS without following due procedure of law and the principles of natural justice?

10. Having gone through the records of the case and after hearing the rival contention of the parties across the bar, it is an admitted fact that the land forming subject matter of the instant case was settled in the favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner, namely Hari Prasad Agarwal in the year 1948 through a registered patta bearing number 1167 of 1948. The land was thereafter sold one to another individual namely Lalita Bhanote vide a registered sale deed dated 31st of March 1989. The Petitioner purchased the land in the year 2007 vide a registered sale deed dated 30th of November 2007. After the Petitioner purchased the land, she filed an application for mutation which was allowed vide order dated 24th of December 2007 and revenue rent receipts was issued in the favour of the Petitioner.

11. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 11th of November 2022 will show that the land was marked as 'suspicious', and it was only on the basis of the same that the land forming subject matter of the instant writ petition was put in the prohibited list. The Respondent-State has not countered the fact that notices were not issued to the Petitioner prior to the jamabandi of the Petitioner being marked as 'suspicious' or before the land was entered in the prohibited list of NGDRS.

12. It is trite law that right to property and its enjoyment is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram and Ors. reported in 2007 10 SCC 448 has held that the right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and if there is any entity claiming a superior right, then such right has to be enforced in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. The relevant portion of the judgement is as under:-

"16...His right, therefore, to own and possess the suit land could not have been taken away without giving him an opportunity of hearing in a matter of this nature. To hold property is a constitutional right in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is also a human right. Right to hold property, therefore, cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions o a statute. If a superior right to hold a property is claimed, the procedures therefore must be complied with."

13. 'Civil consequence' has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India reported in (2013) 8 SCC 20. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under: -

"28....Here again, this Court has reiterated that even an administrative order, which involved civil consequences, must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression "civil consequences"

encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In other words, anything which affects the rights of the citizen in ordinary civil life."

14. In the given facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court there is no doubt that inclusion of the land into the 'Prohibited List' affects the right of enjoyment of the property of an individual which includes right of transfer. The said person can be deprived of various rights such as right to lease the property, right to develop the property or as in the case at hand, the right to alienate/sell the property. As such, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the inclusion of any land in the prohibited list has 'civil consequences.' The first issue stands answered accordingly.

15. Coming onto the second issue, it is trite law that any action, including administrative law, which has civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice and non-adherence to the same would be fatal to such action. In the case at hand, the State has not countered the fact that the no notice(s) were issued to the Petitioner prior to the land being included in the prohibited list of NDGRS. This Court fails to understand that despite having ample opportunity to file a reply, the State Respondent did not bring any procedure on record for the inclusion or exclusion of any property in the prohibited list of NGDRS. Having already observed that inclusion of a property in the prohibited list has civil consequences and as such a Petitioner cannot be deprived of the same without following the due process of law. The action of the Respondent State fails on this ground as well.

16. It is trite law that 'no person can be judge in his own cause'. The fact that neither there is any order by the competent court nor there is any proceeding pending against the Petitioner with respect to cancellation of jamabandi. The contention of the Respondent that the land is of the nature 'Gair Abad' and jamabandi appears to be suspicious cannot be ground to cancel the long standing jamabandi as has been held in the case of Pashupati Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Jhar 946, the relevant portion of which is as under:-

"8. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that while; refusing to grant 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner, the learned Additional Collector, Dhanbad has delved into the question of right and ownership of the petitioner over the land, in question, which is beyond his jurisdiction. The name of the petitioner and predecessor- in-interest had been mutated long ago and they have been paying rent to the State, the State-respondent has already accepted the petitioner as raiyat of the said land. However, in the impugned order learned Additional Collector has observed that the land is a Gair Abad of Ex- landlord and that the petitioner has got no right over the same and he has no legal basis. The action of the Additional Collector recommending annulment of the settlement of the said land is in violation of the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, that too without holding any enquiry required under law, is also perverse, arbitrary and illegal. The said order, thus, cannot stand. I find much substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner."

17. It is also no more res integra that long standing jamabandi cannot be looked into by the revenue court and it is only the civil court of competent jurisdiction which can interfere with such right on an individual.

18. The State's submission that it is contemplating of initiation of proceedings under 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 therefore the Petitioner's property was placed in prohibited list of NGDRS. This submission of the State is devoid of merit because it will be illegal and arbitrary on part of the State to take decision based on anticipation. The proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not provide any limitation prescribed but in the judgment of Antardhari Sao vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 513, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that even if there is no prescribed period of limitation, the authorities are under obligation to initiate proceeding within a reasonable period of time. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under for ready reference: -

"20. Section 4(h) of the Act does not provide for any period of limitation. When there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to initiate the proceeding, it does not mean that this proceeding can be initiated at any time as per the wish of the authority and person, who is initiating the proceeding. In absence of any prescribed period for limitation, the proceeding should be initiated within a reasonable time frame."

4. Moreover, the respondent authorities are not vested in

any law to exercise any jurisdiction effecting the right, title and

interest of any individual. It is only the Civil Court of competent

jurisdiction, who will decide such issue. Placing any property in

prohibited list is a colourable exercise of power and the State

authorities cannot be the judge of its own cause. Reliance in this

regard may be placed in the case of Asha Devi v. State of

Jharkhand & ors. being L.P.A. No. 528 of 2024. The relevant

paragraph is quoted herein below:

"5. The Supreme Court of India in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another, (1982) 2 SCC 134 has held that if there is a bona fide dispute regarding title of the Government to any property, Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title.

7. In judgment dt. 05.11.2020 in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018, a Division Bench of this Court has also declared the settled position of law that a jamabandi once created cannot be annulled particularly when it is created under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, as in the instant case."

Emphasis Supplied

5. Having regards to the above, the order dated

27.12.2023 dismissing the representation filed earlier by the

petitioner, is in nullity in the eye of law and hence quashed.

6. Consequently, the instant writ application stands

allowed and the Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to ensure that

the land of the petitioner is removed from the prohibited list of

NGDRS within a period of 2 weeks from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this order.

7. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/-

NAFR