Bhim Munda, Aged about 71 years, son of Late Shiv Charan Munda, resident of v. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The State of Jharkhand The Deputy
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 Bhim Munda, Aged about 71 years, son of Late Shiv Charan Munda, resident of Opposite Nath Hospital, P.O.- Kadru, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. Appellant Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The State of Jharkhand The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Government of Jharkhand, D.C. Office, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S. - Kotwali, Ranchi The District Sub-Registrar, P.O.-G.P.O.& P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi The Sub-Divisional Officer, P.O.-G.P.O., & P.S. Kotwali, Sadar, Ranchi. The Circle Officer, P.O. Doranda & P.S. Argora, Argora, Ranchi. A.G. Office Employees Co-Operative House Construction Society, having its registered office at New A.G. Cooperative Colony, Kadru, P.O.- Kadru, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi. Dr. Nishi Kumari, W/o Birendra Prakash, R/o Qtr. No. 23/R/3, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Kadru, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Near Kutchery Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR --------- For the Appellant: For the State: For Resp. No.7: For Resp. No.8: Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mrs. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate --------- 26th June 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed to challenge the findings recorded by the writ Court vide order dated 30th January 2024 passed in W.P(C) No. 1204 of 2018, that the vendor of the appellant had no right, title and interest over the piece of land comprised under Mauza Kadru, Khata No. 21, Plot No. 288, Area 2 ½ Katha. 2. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant is that in a writ proceeding a question of title over a landed property cannot be agitated and adjudicated. 3. Briefly stated, under a Notification issued by the Government of Bihar on 3rd February 1961 a chunk of land measuring about 30.52 acres was acquired for the A.G. Office Employees Cooperative, House Construction Society Limited (in short “the Society”) and, in connection therewith, an indenture of transfer was executed in the name of the Governor of Bihar on 12th February 1964 for transfer of the said property in favour of the Society. The vendor of the appellant, namely, Bhudhwa Oraon filed restoration case being SAR Case No. 11/984 of 1974 claiming restoration of 2½ Katha of land comprised within the aforesaid property. The restoration case was allowed in favour of Budhwa Oraon on 16th March 1981 against which S.A.R Appeal No. 6R15/81-82 was preferred by Awadesh Kumar, the father of the respondent no. 7. This is not in dispute that the aforementioned appeal filed by the father of respondent no.7 was allowed by a judgment dated 19th October 1981 and the said order was not put to challenge by Bhudhwa Oraon or his legal heirs/successors. 4. The appellant has pleaded that he purchased 2 Katha and 8 Chattak of land (in short, “subject property”) from Manual Oraon, Bijla Oraon and Anand Oraon who are legal heirs and successors of Budhwa Oraon through a registered deed of sale dated 12th November 2002 and on the basis of the said sale deed mutation in his name was recorded with respect to the subject property. The appellant further pleaded that on his application the Ranchi Municipal Corporation accorded its approval for building map and lay out plan and he raised constructions over the subject property. Later on, on an application made by the respondent no. 7 to the District Sub-Registrar alleging fraudulent transfer made in favour of the appellant, Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 was registered. In the said proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner at Ranchi passed an order on 2nd February 2018 holding that Anand Oraon by misrepresenting himself as the owner fraudulently transferred the subject property through sale deed No. 12269 of 2002 and, therefore, annulled the said sale deed and directed 2 L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 the District Sub-Registrar to lodge a First Information Report in this regard. He also directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi to make an enquiry how permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was granted for sale of the land acquired by the State vide Notification No. 155/61 dated 3rd February 1961 which was issued for acquisition of 30.52 acres of land for the Society. 5. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation instituted UC Case No. 19 of 2018 and in the said proceeding the appellant was called upon to show cause why the construction made over the subject property be not demolished. Thereafter, the Municipal Commissioner passed an order on 12th May 2018 for demolition of the residential building constructed over the subject property, within 15 days. From the list of dates tendered in the Court, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel for the appellant reads out that Jamabandi in the name of Bhim Munda was cancelled and mutation has been entered in the name of Awdhesh Kumar. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the acquisition of 30.52 acres of land for the Society was challenged in CWJC No. 1763 of 1999(R) which was dismissed by an order dated 7th August 2018 and in intra-Court appeal vide L.P.A. No. 350 of 2019 a Division Bench of this Court upheld the writ Court’s judgment and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by a judgment dated 8th December 2021. The learned counsel for the appellant further states that in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15779 of 2022 filed by Arbind Giri and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain “status quo”. On the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ Court’s findings as regards right, title and interest vested in Budhwa Oraon cannot be said to have attained finality. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General-II and Mr. Jitendra Singh and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsels appearing for other respondents have contended that the order passed by the statutory authority in Fraudulent Registration Case no. 13/17-18 could not have been challenged in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 7. To begin with, we may indicate that the writ Court exercises powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in furtherance of justice and equity and such powers are not exercised where there are serious disputes on facts. This is also too well settled that the writ Courts do not pass orders on a mere possibility or probability, (refer, “Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum” AIR 1958 SC 886). On the basis of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be contended that the writ Court’s findings qua Budhwa Oraon have yet not attained finality. The sale deed executed by the legal heirs of Budhwa Oraon in favour of the appellant has rightly been held by the writ Court a void instrument on the basis of which the appellant cannot claim any right over the subject property. Before arriving at such a conclusion, the writ Court referred “Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society” (2013) 5 SCC 427 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “13. There can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification in respect of the land, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, and can only claim compensation as the sale transaction in such a situation is void qua the Government. Any such encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer of the land in question, that is made after the issuance of such a notification, would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the Government. (Vide Gian of Rajasthan, Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Har Narain v. Mam Chand and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer.)” Chand v. Gopala, Yadu Garg v. State Nandan 8. In this context, we may also refer to “S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan” (1980) 4 SCC 379 to indicate that the Courts do not issue futile writs and, therefore, the plea set up by the appellant that the writ Court could not have reflected on the title of Budhwa Oraon over the subject property cannot be accepted. Not withstanding subsequent developments and pendency of the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15779 of 2022, it must be held that sale deed No. 12269 of 2002 was a void transaction on the date of its execution and the said sale deed cannot be held legal because there are subsequent legal developments, which have yet not been conclusively decided. On the basis of the materials on record, it may be safely inferred 4 L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 that the appellant was mislead by the legal heirs of Budhwa Oraon and now the remedy that he can seek is to recover the sale consideration, compensation etc. from his vendors but he cannot have any claim over the subject property by virtue of sale deed dated 12th November 2002. 9. Having regard to the forgoing reasons, this Letters Patent
Decision
Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) VK (Navneet Kumar, J.) 5 L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024