Jharkhand High Court

(G) Bhuneshwari Devi vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 17 January, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P. (C) No. 6526 of 2023
                                ---------

1. (a) Keshav Narayan Singh, Son of Late Man Bodh Singh, aged about 90 years, Resident of H. No. 122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.

1. (b) Bimli Devi, Wife of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, aged about 55 years, Resident of H. No. 122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.

1. (c) Dilranjan Singh, Son of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, aged about 35 years, Resident of H. No. 122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.

1. (d) Alok Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, aged about 23 years, Resident of H. No. 122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.

1. (e) Anup Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, aged about 25 years, Resident of H. No. 122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.

1. (f) Poonam Devi, Daughter of Late Bhirvi Sharan Sigh, aged about 37 years, Resident of Gomia Colony, P.O. & P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro.

1. (g) Bhuneshwari Devi, Daughter of Keshav Narayan Singh, aged about 65 years, Resident of Village Oberia, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi. ....Petitioners Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District Ranchi;

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi;

3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi;

4. The Circle Officer, Chanho, officiating from his office at O/o the SDO, P.O. & P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi. ....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate

---------

08/Dated:-17.01.2025

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioners praying before the court to direct the concerned

respondents to remove the scheduled property from the 'restricted

list' in NGDRS as the land in question is transferable in nature

and is owned and possessed by the petitioner.

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

of the dispute is related to scheduled property situated at Mouza

Rani Chanho, Thana No. 86, Khata No. 143, Plot No. 1159 that

was gifted to the petitioner by her mother-in-law in the year 1943

and thereafter, the name of petitioner was duly entered in the

the petitioner till the year 2015-16. Further the petitioner tried to

pay the rent receipt in the year 2016 but was declined by the

concerned respondent and was further refused to provide reason

for the same against which the petitioner filed a writ petition. The

order was passed in favour of the petitioner and after contempt

case the concerned respondent was directed to issued rent receipt

in favour of petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that

the said property was included in the restricted list in NGDRS.

The petitioner vide letter dated 05.07.2023 requested the

respondent to remove the said property from the restricted list

however it was of no avail. Hence, this writ application.

3. The 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).

"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. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention here that

during course of final hearing, the respondent counsel produced

an order dated 13.01.2025 issued by Deputy Commissioner-cum-

District Magistrate, Ranchi dismissing the representation filed

earlier by the original petitioner which is taken on record.

However, in view of the fact that the concerned respondent

authority is 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 made to the case of L.P.A.

No. 528 of 2024.

"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."

5. Having regards to the above, the order dated

13.01.2025 dismissing the representation filed earlier by the

original 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.) vikas/-

NAFR / AFR