Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 28 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2233 of 2024
Birendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 67 years, Son of Late Bramhdeo Sinha,
resident of Bramha House Dhaiya, Post ISM, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand through its Power of Attorney Holder Surendra
Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Bramhdeo Sinha, Residents of Dhirendrapuram
Colony Road, Post ISM, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 1376 of 2024
1. Ram Prasad Agarwal, aged about 63 years, son of Late Ram Chandra
Agarwal, resident of Govindpur, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Ram Mohan Singh, aged about 75 years, son of Late Shiv Das Singh,
resident of Om Bhawan, Dhansar, Near Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, P.O.
Dhansar, P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
1
With
W.P.(C) No. 1510 of 2024
1. Poonam Agarwal, aged about 51 years, wife of Rajesh Agarwal, resident
of Flat No. 9, Bank Road, Near Telephone Exchange Road, Opp. C.C.
Hazara Hospital P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
through its Power of Attorney Holder Subhash Agarwal, Son of Santlal
Agarwal, Residents of Jamuna Bay Road, Bank More, Near Rey Takies,
P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Madhu Agarwal, aged about 48 years, wife of Anil Agarwal, resident of
Flat No. 4/C, Bank Road, Near Telephone Exchange Road, Opp. C.C.
Hazara Hospital P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
through its Power of Attorney Holder Subhash Agarwal, Son of Santlal
Agarwal, Residents of Jamuna Bay Road, Bank More, Near Rey Takies,
P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 2201 of 2024
Mangalam Builders, having its office at Near Ray Talkies, Bank More,
Dhanbad, P.O & P.S- Dhanbad, Jharkhand through its Power of Attorney
Holder Surendra Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Bramhdeo Sinha, Residents of
Dhirendrapuram Colony Road, Post ISM, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 2266 of 2024
Nagendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 66 years, Son of Late Bramhdeo Sinha,
resident of Bramha House, Dhirendrapuram Colony Road, Dhaiya, Post
ISM, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand through its Power
of Attorney Holder Surendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 71 years, Son of
Late Bramhdeo Sinha, Residents of Dhirendrapuram Colony Road, Post
ISM, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 2276 of 2024
Surendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 71 years, son of Late Brahmdeo Sinha,
Residents of Dhirendrapuram Colony Road, Post ISM, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S.
Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
[in all cases]
For the Respondents : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-II
[in W.P.(C) No. 2233 of 2024]
Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II
[in W.P.(C) Nos. 1376, 2266 & 2276 of 2024]
Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, AC to SC-III
[in W.P.(C) No. 1510 of 2024]
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III
[in W.P.(C) No. 2201 of 2024]
--------
Order No. 05 /Dated: 28th February 2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These writ applications have been preferred by the petitioners
praying for common relief of quashing the order dated 10.10.2023 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in the respective Misc. cases
wherein the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application of the
petitioners regarding removal of their respective land from the list of
prohibited property.
3. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the
respondent(s) to remove their respective land from the list of prohibited
property uploaded on the NGDRS Portal.
4. The matter relates to removal of the respective lands of the
petitioners, situated in Dhanbad, from the prohibited list of properties
uploaded on National Generic Document Registration System (hereinafter
referred to as 'NGDRS').
5. The description of the land of the respective petitioners is as
under:
Sl. No. Writ Petition No. Description of Land
1 W.P.(C) No. 2233 of 2024 1692 Sq. feet of land, in C.S. Plot No.
262, Khata No. 157, Mouza No.51,
Mouza-Dhanbad
2 W.P.(C) No. 1376 of 2024 10718 sq. feet or 14 Katha 14 Chattak
of land, situated at C.S. Plot No. 262,
Khata No. 157, Mouza No.51, Mouza-
Dhanbad
3 W.P.(C) No. 1510 of 2024 5 Kathas or 8.25 decimal of land
situated at C.S. Plot No. 262, Khata
No. 157, Mouza No. 51, Mouza-
Dhanbad
4 W.P.(C) No. 2201 of 2024 14.05 Kathas or 23.18 decimal of land,
in C.S. Plot No. 262, Khata No. 157,
Mouza No. 51, Mouza-Dhanbad
5 W.P.(C) No. 2266 of 2024 3321 sq. feet. or 7.6 decimal of land,
situated at C.S. Plot No. 262, Khata
No. 157, Mouza No. 51, Mouza-
Dhanbad
6 W.P.(C) No. 2276 of 2024 1710 sq. feet and 1692 sq. feet,
totalling upto 3402 sq. feet or 7.81
decimal of land, situated at C.S. Plot
No. 262, Khata No. 157, Mouza No.
51, Mouza-Dhanbad
6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are raiyats
of the respective portion of their land in C.S. Plot No. 262, Khata No. 157,
Mouza No. 51, Mouza-Dhanbad which originally belonged to Raja Shiva
Prasad Singh of Jharia Raj Estate who settled the land with his wife, Rani
Smt. Mandakini Kumari Devi by a permanent Tikuri Settlement Deed No.
2090 dated 27.04.1936 which was registered at Dhanbad Sub-Registry
Office.
7. The petitioners are the land owners who had entered into a
Development Agreement dated 11.12.2007 with Kalpatru Electricals &
Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as "the developer"), in
terms of which the Developer has constructed a multi-storied residential-
cum-commercial building complex on the land in question of the
Petitioners and the adjoining lands.
8. When the Developer approached the Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad
in the year 2019 to register the sale deeds in favour of the purchasers, the
Developer was informed that the registration could not be done because
the land in question was listed in prohibited property uploaded on the
website https://jharnibandhan.gov.in (hereinafter referred to as "NGDRS
Portal").
9. The petitioners therefore instituted respective Miscellaneous
Cases before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad who is the Competent
Authority as per the notification dated 07.09.2021 issued by the
Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Jharkhand for
removal of their respective land in question from prohibited property
uploaded on NGDRS portal, which has been rejected. Hence the writ
applications.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in W.P.(C)
No. 1510 of 2024 wherein the main ground taken by the state authorities is
that Plot No. 262 is recorded as Gair Abad in the Cadastral Record of
Rights.
11. The issue in the present writ applications is covered by the
judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.847 of 2023 titled
"Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand" wherein this Court has
observed as under:
"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.""
12. Even otherwise, 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.
13. Therefore, for the reasons alike, the respective writ
applications stand allowed and the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in the respective Misc. Cases is hereby
quashed and set aside and the concerned respondent is directed to remove
the land of the petitioners from the prohibited list within a period of
6 weeks from the date of receipt of order.
14. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amit
AFR/NAFR
