Jharkhand High Court
M/S Micro Cement Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2018
---------
M/s Micro Cement Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sri Shyam Sundar
Dokania, son of late Raghubir Prasad Dokania, resident of Katras
Road, Matkuri, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, District - Dhanbad.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commisioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
District- Dhanbad.
3. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.
Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad.
5. Additional Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad. ....Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2018
---------
M/s Micro Cement Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sri Shyam Sundar
Dokania, son of late Raghubir Prasad Dokania, resident of Katras
Road, Matkuri, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, District - Dhanbad.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commisioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
District- Dhanbad.
3. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.
Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad.
5. Additional Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, S.C. (L&C)-III
---------
C.A.V. ON: 07.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 12/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Since both
these writ applications are interconnected and relates to the same
petitioner; as such, both were heard together and being disposed
of by this common order.
2025:JHHC:28121
2. The writ application being W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2018 has
been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following
reliefs:
i. For quashing of the Order dated 21.01.2016 whereby the circle
officer has rejected the Petitioner's application for mutation in utter
violation of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act,
1973.
ii. For issuance of appropriate writ particularly in the nature of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside the list of prohibited land
(Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the Land in question i.e.,
Khata No. 157, Plot No. 413 admeasuring an area of 6 kathas i.e.,
9.9 decimals, has been inserted in the list of prohibited land
issued for Prohibition of Registration of Transfer of land under
National Generic Document Registration System List (NGDRS
List). (Subsequently inserted through an I.A. no. 4623 of 2025 vide
order dated 25.04.2025).
3. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2018 has
been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following
reliefs:
i. For quashing of the Order dated 21.1.2016 whereby the circle
officer has rejected the Petitioner's application for mutation in utter
violation of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act,
1973.
ii. For issuance of appropriate writ particularly in the nature of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside the list of prohibited land
(Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the Land in question i.e.
Khata No. 157, Plot No. 413 admeasuring an area of 14 kathas
has been inserted in the list of prohibited land issued for
Prohibition of Registration of Transfer of land under National
Generic Document Registration System List (NGDRS List).
(Subsequently inserted through an I.A. no. 4624 of 2025 vide order
dated 25.04.2025).
4. Briefly stated, the Land in question were purchased from the
Settled Raiyat long back and had been thereafter duly mutated
and Jamabandi was opened in the name of the Vendors of the
Petitioner which was continuing for more than forty years.
Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the plot of land.
A complaint was made that the land in question was a Gair
Abad Khata and, therefore, the mutation was put on hold. The
2025:JHHC:28121
private compliant was enquired into by the Additional Collector
and in the letter dated 19.09.2015 and he recorded a finding that
the petitioner was in possession of the land since long and the
complaint was false and frivolous.
Despite the findings as recorded on enquiry by the
Additional Collector, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated
18.05.2016 directed the Circle Officer that since the land belongs
to Gair Abad Khata and was transferred after 01.01.1946,
therefore, it was felt necessary to make enquiry into the said
transfer and directed that the letter of Additional Collector be not
acted in the said matter.
Further, the property of petitioner has been inserted in the
list of prohibited land issued for prohibition of Registration of
Transfer of Land under National Generic Document Registration
System List. Hence, these writ applications.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Chawra
family purchased 1 Bigha 2 Kathas of land vide registered deed of
sale bearing 6080 dated 11.06.1954 and subsequently the names
of members of the Chawra family were mutated in the revenue
records of the State (Refer Annexure 1 series).
Thereafter, proceedings under Bihar Land Enforcement Act
were initiated against Chiman Lal Chawra @ Chiman Khangarji
Chawra on the ground that lands in Khata no. 157 bearing plot
no. 413 having a total area of 1.49 acres is recorded as Gair Abad
2025:JHHC:28121
Malik land in khatiyan. Pursuant thereto; the said Chiman Lal
Chawra appeared and produced all the relevant documents before
the Circle Officer and upon which vide its order dated 29.04.1976,
the Circle Officer held that the rent receipts were being issued
since the time of vesting and therefore, land encroachment was
not applicable in the said case and consequently, the aforesaid
proceedings were dropped.
Further, it is apparent from the order dated 29.4.1976 that
the names of predecessors in interest of Petitioner were mutated
in the Revenue Records of the State and Rent Receipts were issued
in their favour.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the main
grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner made an
application for mutation (refer Annexure-3) with all the documents
before the concerned authority, the respondents kept the matter
pending for 3 years and finally the Circle Officer, Dhanbad has
rejected the Mutation application submitted by the Petitioner vide
impugned order dated 20.01.2016. Further, the property of the
petitioner has been wrongly inserted in the list of prohibited land
issued for prohibition of Registration of Transfer of Land under
National Generic Document Registration System List (NGDRS
List).
7. Learned counsel lastly submits that although there is
provision of appeal before the LRDC; however the reason for not
2025:JHHC:28121
preferring the statutory right of appeal is that since the impugned
order rejecting the petitioners' mutation application had been
passed by the Circle Officer under the direction of Deputy
Commissioner, he would not get justice by filing an appeal before
LRDC as the said Appellate Authority is also an officer below the
rank of Deputy Commissioner and would not apply its
independent mind; therefore, the Petitioner has invoked the Writ
Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the
counter affidavit opposes the prayer made in the instant writ
applications and has raised only the point of appeal under Section
16 of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after
going through the averments made in the respective affidavits, it
appears that the impugned order dated 21.01.2016 is absolutely
against the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 14 of Bihar
Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. From the
impugned order itself, it is evident that the name of the vendor is
recorded in registered deed and similarly name of other persons
are also running in Register-II with regard to separate portions of
the same property purchased by them.
Once the name of transferor is found to be entered in
Register-II and he/she has transferred the said property by way of
registered deed then the Circle Officer could not have refused to
mutate the name of the petitioner/purchaser.
2025:JHHC:28121
It is well settled principle that the revenue authorities while
mutating the names of a person, the Circle Officer is only required
to see the instrument by which the property/land has been
transferred and further, the status of possession on the date of the
application and no other aspects have to be seen by revenue
authorities. The revenue authorities cannot travel beyond the
aforesaid prerequisite in making entries in the revenue record of
the State and therefore, the said impugned order is bad in law.
It further transpires that since the authorities have found
that the petitioner is in possession of land in question having
purchased the land through a registered deed of sale and
therefore, the Circle Officer ought to have mutated the name of the
Petitioner in revenue record of the State. As stated hereinabove, in
the instant case, proceedings under Bihar Land Reforms Act has
been initiated and dropped on merit, as far back as year 1974
itself and other Jamabandis with regard to identically placed
person was running in Register-II, no reason left with the Circle
Officer to refuse the mutation application.
10. Further in regard to the insertion of the land of
petitioner in the prohibited list; this issue is covered by the
judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed by this Court in W.P.
(C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand)
wherein it has been held 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?
2025:JHHC:28121
(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
2025:JHHC:28121
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."
11. 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.
2025:JHHC:28121
12. This Court is not impressed by the argument of learned
counsel for the respondent with regard to alternative remedy as to
exhaust the alternative remedy is the rule before invoking writ
jurisdiction, but in exceptional cases where the appeals and
revisions become an empty formality and a foregone conclusion,
then it will become inequitable to drive the petitioner for
alternative remedy after long pendency of the writ petition.
At the cost of repetition, in the case at hand, Deputy
Commissioner is the revisional authority, who from record
appears to have taken a stand for holding an enquiry under
Section 4(h) of the B.L.R Act with respect to the land in question.
Under the circumstance relegating the petitioner to exhaust the
alternative remedy in the form of appeal and revision will be an
exercise in futility and a waste of time.
This Court is of the view that circumstances of the present
justify invoking the writ jurisdiction by surpassing the local
remedies.
13. It is reiterated that the property in question has come to the
possession by way of chain of registered transfers and the first
transfer was by way of registered deed prior to the enforcement of
Bihar Land Reforms Act and therefore, the State cannot put the
petitioner's property in NGDRS list and if it claimed the said
property as State's property, then it was required to have initiated
appropriate proceedings within reasonable time, after the
enforcement of BLR Act. The State, however, neither challenged
2025:JHHC:28121
the registered transfers; nor the order by which proceeding under
Public Land Encroachment Act had been dropped on merit.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, both these instant writ applications are allowed and
the Order dated 21.01.2016 is quashed and set aside and
Annexure 8 in both these writ application i.e. the list of prohibited
land is also quashed and set aside to the extent whereby the Land
in question i.e., Khata No. 157, Plot No. 413 admeasuring an area
of 6 kathas i.e., 9.9 decimals, in W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2018 and to
the extent whereby the Land in question i.e. Khata No. 157, Plot
No. 413 admeasuring an area of 14 kathas in W.P. (C) No. 265 of
2018 has been inserted in the list of prohibited land.
15. As a result, both these writ applications stand allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
vikas/-
A.F.R.
