Jharkhand High Court

M/S Bhabishya Rice Mill Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 28 February, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(C) No.6949 of 2023
                                   -------

M/s Bhabishya Rice Mill Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at B/1, Drainage Cannal Road, Howrah, P.O. & P.S. Howrah, District Howrah, West Bengal, through its Director Krishan Murari Choudhdary, S/o Rajendra Choudhary, Aged about 53 years, R/o Damkara Barwa, P.O. & P.S. Barwada, District Dhanbad.

...... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand;

2. The Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, having Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S Dhanbad, District Dhanbad;

4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S Dhanbad, District Dhanbad;

5. The Circle Officer, Govindpur Circle, P.O. Govindpur P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand;

6. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registry Office, Dhanbad, having office at Court more, P.O & P.S Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. .... Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Adv.

: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Res-State : Mr. Mirnal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to G.A.-I

-------

06/Dated:28.02.2025

1. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioner for following relief:-

(a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the list of prohibited land (Annexure 7) issued for prohibition of registration of transfer of land, which is uploaded on the website of the Government of Jharkhand by The Revenue,

Registration and Land Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand;

(b) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent not to refuse registration of the land in question in the garb of showing the land in question in prohibited list unilaterally prepared by the respondents;

(c) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to harass the petitioner and not let the petitioner to run from one office to another without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner and accept the sale deed so presented for registration of transfer of land in question by the respondent no. 6.

(d) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) especially in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to take decision in terms of provisions contained in Section 71 of Registration Act, if the respondent is otherwise refusing to register the transfer deed in respect to the land in question so presented before him.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the land in

question is situated at Mouza Panduki, P.S.- Govindpur,

Mouza No. 90, New Khata No. 203 (Old Khata No. 114),

New Plot No. 3 (Old Plot No. 3), area measuring 60

Decimals, New Plot No. 25 (Old Plot No. 13), area

measuring 37.22 Decimals, New Plot No. 89 (Old Plot No.

37), area measuring 85 Decimals, New Plot No. 90 (Old

Plot No. 40), area measuring 280 Decimals, New Plot No.

93 (Old Plot No. 44), area measuring 58 Decimals, New

Plot No. 157 (Old Plot No. 72, 73, 74, 216), area

measuring 211 Decimals, Total area measuring 731.22

Decimals.

The petitioner company has purchased land in

question through various sale deeds bearing Sale Deed

No. 4180/3692 dated 14.03.2011 from its vendor namely

Smt. Alka Devi & 11 others on payment of entire

consideration amount and from the date of purchase, the

petitioner was put in actual possession over the land in

question and has been enjoying peaceful possession,

ownership and title over the same. After mutation the

petitioner started making payment of rent to the State

Government from time to time and for each year rent

receipts were issued in favour of the petitioner regularly

and currently the petitioner has paid rent to the

Government till the year 2020-21, i.e. on 16.03.2021.

Subsequently, without any rhyme and reason

and without issuing any notice, land of the petitioner was

included in the prohibited List vide Annexure -7 and the

same is also been uploaded on the website of the State of

Jharkhand and therefore the petitioner is not able to sale

its land. Hence this writ application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the core issue in the present writ application is covered

by the judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed in

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

Jharkhand). Learned counsel for the Respondents could

not dispute the aforesaid position. For brevity, relevant

paragraph is quoted herein below:-

"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-ininterest 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 OnLineJhar 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. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the

respondent authorities are not vested in any law to

exercise any jurisdiction affecting 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.

5. Therefore, for the reasons alike, the instant

writ application stands allowed and the concerned

respondent is directed to allow registration of land in

question without giving effect to prohibited list