Chitra, District Deoghar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 3. The Special Officer
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003 M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Accounts Officer, S.P. Mines, Chitra namely, Ashok Kumar Baliase, son of Sri Mahaeshwar Prasad Baliase, Resident of Officer’s Resident, New Colony, S.P. Mines Chitra, Post Office-Chitra [Via-Jamtara], Police Station: Chitra, District Deoghar Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 3. The Special Officer, Notified Area Committee, Jamtara, District: Jamtara 4. Chairman Notified Are Committee-Cum-Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara, Police Station-Jamtara, Sub Division Jamtara, District Jamtara Respondents … … With W.P. (C) No. 1088 of 2006 General Manager of SP Mines, Eastern Coalfields Limited [a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act] namely Narendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Kedar Singh, R/o Old Colony, SP Mines, Chitra, Post Office-Chitra [via- Jamtara], P.S. Chitra District Deoghar having its office at SP Mines, Post Office-Chitra [Via-Jamtara], Police Station Chitra, District Deoghar Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 3. The Special Officer, Jamtara Notified Area Committee, District :Jamtara 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara-cum-Chairman, Jamtara Notified Area Committee-cum-Certificate Officer, Post Office Jamtara, Police Station: Jamtara, District Jamtara … With … Respondents W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009
Legal Reasoning
M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited [a Government Company within meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act] through its Senior Accounts Officer, S.P. Mines Area of ECL at Chitra, Deoghar namely, Ashok Kumar Baliase, son of Sri Maheshwar Prasad Baliase, Resident of Quarter No. C-08/18, New Colony, Chitra, Post Office- Chitra [Via- Jamtara], Police Station: Chitra, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara Versus At-Jamtara, Post Office and Police Station-Jamtara, District Jamtara, Jharkhand … … Petitioner 2. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Jamtara Notified Area Committee, At Jamtara Post Office and Police Station: Jamtara District Jamtara, Jharkhand 3. Chairman, Jamtara Notified Are Committee; At Jamtara, Post Office and Police Station: Jamtara, District : Jamtara, Jharkhand 4. Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jamtara … … Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp. Jamtara Nagar Panchayat For the Resp. State --- : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A. II ( In W.P. (C) No. 1088/2006) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate (In W.P. (C) 5149.2003 and in W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009) --- 22/17.12.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003 has been filed for the following reliefs:
Decision
“For quashing of the Order dated 11.03.2003 passed in Rev. Misc. Petition Case No.1 of 2003, by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the Rev. Misc. Petition Case No. 1 of 2003 on the ground that that the Petitioner has already filed representation before the Assessing Officer [Notified Area Committee Cum Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara] to review the illegal / abnormal assessment of rent tax for the Railway siding at Jamtara by the Notified Area Committee of Jamtara and if the Petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by it than he may approach him but the Notified Area Committee Cum Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara has not disposed of the representation of the Petitioner and has taken coercive steps for realisation of the same. (b) To quash the illegal & abnormal assessment made by the Respondent No 3 & 4 vide Notice No. 07 dated 24.01.2002 [Annexure-6) with respect to the Railway siding of the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) To quash the illegal demand as made by the Respondent No.3 & 4 vide Annexures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 25 against the illegal assessment made by them in respect to the Railway riding of the Petitioner, which has commenced its business since 1997. AND 2 Further be pleased to grant such other relief to the petitioner to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 3. W.P. (C) No. 1088 of 2006 has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(a). For quashing of the Demand Letter No.495 dated 11.12.2004 [Annexure-26] issued by Respondent No. 3 whereby and where under he has been pleased to demand the sub-judice amount of Rs.7,97,647/- i.e. the rest 50% out of the alleged arbitrary assessed amount of Notified Area Commercial Holding Tax for the Jamtara Railway siding for the period 1996-97 to 2002-03 for which this Hon'ble Court has directed the Respondents to take no coercive steps as against the Petitioner vide its order dated 18.10.2003 passed in WP [C] No. 5149 of 2003 [Annexure-25] and further demanded an amount of Rs.2,98,922/- for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05 for the said Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner [i.e. Annual Tax of Rs.1,49,461/- in respect to House Tax, Lighting Tax and Commercial Tax), which is similarly excessive and arbitrary having abnormally assessed by Respondent No.3 & 4. (b) To quash the illegal Demand Letter No 411 dated 11.08.2005 [Annexure-27] wherein the Respondents No.3 has repeated his demand of Rs.7,97,647/- i.e. the rest 50% out of the alleged arbitrary assessed amount of Notified Area Commercial Holding Tax for the Jamtara Railway siding for the period 1996-97 to 2002-03 for which this Hon'ble Court has directed the Respondents to take no coercive steps as against the Petitioner vide its order dated 18.10.2003 passed in WP [C] No.5149 of 2003 [Annexure- 25] and further demanded an amount of Rs.4,48,383/- for the period 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 for the said Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner [ie. Annual Tax of Rs.1,49,461/- in respect to House Tax, Lighting Tax and Commercial Tax), which is similarly excessive and arbitrary having abnormally assessed by Respondent No.3 & 4. 4. W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009 has been filed for the following reliefs:- “ To quash the illegal, baseless, arbitrary, exorbitant demand as made by the Respondent No.2 vide Demand Notice No. 508 dated 22.06.2007 [Annexures-29] and its reminder Demand Notice No.172 dated 14.03.2008 [Annexures-31] towards the Annual Municipal Tax [ie. House Tax, Commercial Tax and Lighting Tax) in respect to Jamtara Railway Siding of the Petitioner, under Jamtara Notified Area that is not in existence, for the period 2006-07 3 the to quash & 2007-08, @Rs.1,49,461/- for each year, including the demand of the balance amount of annual municipal tax for the period 1992-93 to 2002-03 and period 2003-04 to 2005- 06 that is subject matter of WP [C] No.5149 of 2003 and WP [C] No.1088 of 2006 respectively and recovery of which has been stayed by the Hon'ble Court and that was calculated on basis of the illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, exorbitant, ex-parte assessment made by Special Officer of the Jamtara Notified Area Committee [Respondent No.2] in respect to the Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner, which has admittedly acquired by the State and handed over to the Petitioner in the year 1992 and the Petitioner commenced its first business on 08.01.1997. (ii) Further illegal, baseless, arbitrary, exorbitant demand as made by the Respondent No.2 vide Demand Notice No.278 dated 20.04.2009 [Annexures-33] towards the Annual Municipal Tax [ie. House Tax, Commercial Tax and Lighting Tax) in respect to Jamtara Railway Siding of the Petitioner, under Jantara Notified Area that is not in existence, for the period 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 @ Rs.1,49,461/- for each year, including the demand of the balance amount of annual municipal tax for the period 1992-93 to 2002-03 and period 2003-04 to 2005- 06 that is subject matter of WP [C] No.5149 of 2003 and WP [C] No.1088 of 2006 respectively and recovery of which has been stayed by the Hon'ble Court and that was calculated on basis of the illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, exorbitant, ex-parte assessment made by Special Officer of the Jamtara Notified Area Committee [Respondent No.2] in respect to the Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner, which has admittedly been acquired by the State Government and handed over to the Petitioner in the year 1992 and the Petitioner commenced its first business on 08.01.1997.” Arguments of the Petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003 is relating to the period 1992-93 to 2002-03 whereas writ petition W.P. (C) No. 1088 of 2006 is relating to the period 2003-04 and 2005-06 and W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009 is relating to the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. 6. The arguments have been advanced primarily from the records of W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 36.03 acres of vacant land was acquired for construction of Railway siding under Land Acquisition Act vide Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 1986 and Case No. 6 of 1986-87 corresponding to Notification No. 4 1861 and 1862 both dated 27.09.1991 and it is the specific case of the petitioner that the same was handed over to the petitioner on September 1992. 8. It is further case of the petitioner that a railway siding was constructed sometimes in the year 1996, 1997 and 1998 along with certain structure to facilitate the smooth functioning of the siding/depot for transportation of coal to the core sector of the government. It is further the case of the petitioner that railway siding in question of the S.P. Mines, Chitra is situated within Mouza Ghanghara No. 6 and Mouza Baiba no. 8, Jamtara Ward No. 3 of the Notified Area Committee Jamtara and at that point of time the holding number was allotted to the aforesaid area being holding no. 284 to the structure constructed at the railway siding at Jamtara by the petitioner. 9. It is further case that the respondent never used to demand any sort of tax/charges from the petitioner with respect to railway siding in question. However, a notice no. 7 dated 24.01.2002 (Annexure-6) was issued for the assessment of annual tax under Section 115(2) of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 and the tax was sought to be levied with retrospective effect from 1985-86 house tax @ Rs. 34,575 and lighting tax @ Rs.1800. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that the assessment was ex- parte and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. It was their further grievance that under no circumstance, the amount could be assessed against the petitioner from 1985-86 in view of the aforesaid facts. 11. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the notice of demand was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided under Section 123 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. Section 123 of the Act is quoted as under:- “123. Notice of demand to be presented-(1) Within fourteen days of the first day of the quarter, the Commissioners shall notify by public proclamation, or in such manner as they may consider suitable, the date on which an instalment of the tax becomes due. (2) If the sum due on account of any tax is not paid within fourteen days from the date on which it becomes due, the 5 Commissioners shall cause to be served on the person liable to pay the same a notice in the prescribed form: Provided that- (a) no notice shall be served more than six months after any sum has become due; and (b) no charge shall be made in respect of the service of such notice. (3) Such notice shall be signed by the Chairman or an officer authorized in that behalf, and shall be served by a person authorized to receive payment.” 12. Further grievance of the petitioner is mentioned in paragraph 10 questioning the jurisdiction of the authority by stating that the notice could not be issued when the present Notified Committee of Jamatara was not in existence and at present there is no elected Ward Commissioner for a long time. It was also submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer who is Ex-officio Acting Chairman of the Notified Committee of Jamtara has no proprietary, competence and jurisdiction to assess tax and issue such notice and as such the entire action was void and nullity in the eyes of law. 13. It was their further case that the petitioner had filed their representation but no order was being passed. Under such circumstances they had moved the Deputy Commissioner in RMP No. 1 of 2002-03 who disposed of the matter vide order dated 11.03.2003 by observing that a representation was pending before the Notified Area Committee. 14. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the petitioner approached the Notified Area Committee and without hearing the petitioner the order was passed which is contained in Annexure-11 dated 19.06.2002 to the writ petition in which a few more taxes were also added. The learned counsel has submitted that thereafter revised demand was issued vide Annexure-25 dated 05.09.2003. The learned counsel submits that the authorities have been issuing the orders without granting opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel submits that revised demand dated 05.09.2003 and other orders are also challenged before this court. He has also referred to supplementary affidavit while raising a grievance that the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of after granting any opportunity of 6 hearing and specific averment has been made in the supplementary affidavit that Notified Area Committee was no longer in existence in view of Ordinance No. 13 of 1954 introduced w.e.f. 30.05.1994. 15. The learned counsel has also submitted that Certificate case was also filed for realization of dues by the same officer which is apparent from Annexure-21,22 and 23. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited certain amount pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2003. Vide order dated 18.10.2003 it was observed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the assessed amount within one month the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dwarika Nath Prasad versus State of Bihar reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 718. Equivalent is 1999 SCC Online Patna 854 and has submitted that after the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance 1994 was introduced w.e.f. 30.05.1994 and provision of Section 388 was deleted from the statute and therefore the Notified Area Committee ceased to exist and consequently no proceeding of whatsoever nature could have been initiated to recover any amount from the petitioner by the Authority under the Notified Area Committee. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 736 (Ram Naresh Singh versus The State of Bihar and Ors.) and has submitted that the Division Bench has also taken note of the judgment passed in the case of Dwarika Nath Prasad versus State of Bihar (supra) and has observed that the Sub Divisional Officer, in the capacity of Chairman of Notified Area Committee, could not have settled the piece of land as Taxi stand and prescribe for collection of tax. The learned counsel submits that the said judgment was passed in view of the 74th Constitutional amendment followed by deletion of Section 388 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. 7 17. However, during the course of arguments from the writ petition it is not clear as to since when the Notified Area Committee, Jamtara was in existence, whether it was in existence prior to coming into force of the 74th Constitutional Amendment followed by Bihar amendment i.e. 30.05.1994 or it was constituted thereafter. This assumes importance in view of the fact that in the judgment of Dwarika Nath Prasad (supra) the concerned Notified Area Committee was notified by the state government after coming into force of 74th Constitution Amendment and also after Bihar Municipal Ordinance Amendment 1994 which was introduced w.e.f. 30.05.1994 and the connected notification with respect to concerned Notified Area Committee was dated 14.07.1994/19.07.1994. Arguments of the Respondent 18. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not complied the provisions of Section 186 of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act at any point of time and no notice was given to the Notified Area Committee regarding erection or construction of the building and regarding commencement of commercial transaction in terms of Section 186 and Section 150-A of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. Section 150-A and 186 are quoted as under:- “150A- Tax on profession, trades, callings and employments-When it has been determined that a tax shall be imposed on professions, trades, callings and employments, every person who exercise within the municipality, either by himself or by an agent or representative, any of the professions, trades, callings or employments specified in the Fourth Schedule and who is liable to pay such tax, shall take out a half-yearly licence and pay the tax assessed on him in pursuance of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of section 82: Provided that such tax shall be imposed on the income accrued within the municipality during the year next preceding the year for which the tax is imposed; Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any person who exercises any such profession, trade, callings or holds any employment within the municipality and whose taxable income does not exceed fifteen hundred rupees per mensem or the value of whose place of business does not exceed ten rupees per mensem or whose income from employment 8 does not exceed twenty-four hundred rupees per annum; Provided also that any person is able to pay the tax under this section may, if he so desire, on application to the Commissioners, take out a yearly licence on payment of the full amount of the tax due for the whole year: Provided also that the grant of such a license shall not be deemed to affect the liability of the licensee to take out a licence under any other section of this Act:” 186. Notice of intention to erect building or make well- (1) A person shall give notice to the Commissioners before beginning, within the limits of the municipality. (a) to erect a new building or new part of building; or (b) to erect, or make a material alteration in a building; or (c) to make or enlarge a well. (2) The Commissioner may by a bye-law exempt any class of buildings or wells within the whole or any part of the municipality from the provisions of sub-section (1). (3) An alteration in a building, shall for the purposes of this Chapter and of any bye-laws, be deemed to be material if it:- (a) affects or is likely to affect prejudicially the stability or safety of the building or the condition of the building in respect of drainage, ventilation, sanitation or hygiene; or (b) increases or diminishes the height, or area covered by, or cubical capacity or the building or reduces the cubical capacity of any room in the building below the minimum prescribed in any bye law; or (c) converts into a place for human habitation a building or part of a building originally constructed for purposes; or (d) is an alteration declared by a bye-law made in this behalf to be a material alteration.” 19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer has submitted that the taxes which were imposed prior to coming into force of Bihar Municipal Amendment Ordinance 1994 [made effective from 30.05.1994] was realizable and the Notified Area Committee which was in existence on 30.05.1994 continued to operate by virtue of section 390 (C) of Bihar Municipal Act, 1922. He has submitted that merely by virtue of the aforesaid Bihar amendment made effective from 30.05.1994, the liability created under the then existing law is not wiped out. 9 20. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel has not been able to give any date and also could not clarify the fact from the records as to when the Notified Area Committee, Jamatara was created. Thus, neither in the writ petition nor in the counter affidavit this fact has been placed on record. 21. The learned counsel has further submitted that by virtue of the transitional provision, the grievance of the petitioner in connection with quantification of the taxes can be taken care of by the Executive Officer Jamtara Nagar Panchayat as the Nagar Panchayat has been constituted by virtue of Notification dated 06.02.2006. The learned counsel has also submitted that connected notification creating Nagar Panchayat has been placed on record in the counter affidavit dated 03.09.2012 which is at Annexure-A. The learned counsel has submitted that in the batch of writ petitions certain period is post 06.02.2006. The grievance in connection with the period after constitution of Jamtara Nagar Panchayat can also be taken care of by the Executive Officer. He has submitted that if any liability has been imposed under prior to aforesaid Bihar amendment and the Notified Area Committee was in existence prior to Bihar amendment, then under such circumstances the liability would remain and if there is any subsequent Notification under the aforesaid Act creating any liability by virtue of creation of Jamtara Nagar Panchayat, the same can also be taken care of. The petitioner being a government undertaking can certainly place the entire materials before the Executive Officer of Jamtara Nagar Panchayat in terms of the provisions of the Municipal Act. 22. The learned counsel has submitted that in the affidavit dated 05.09.2012 specific reference has been made in paragraph 18 with respect to the saving clause under Section 390-C of the Municipal Act. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by this court in 2004(3) J.C.R. 262 (Gamaria Nagrik Samiti and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Others) and has submitted that by referring to the provisions of Section 390-C of Bihar Municipal Act, this court has observed that the main section envisages that the municipality and the 10 Notified Area Committee shall cease to exist after commencement of the ordinance but the second proviso saves the existing Municipality/Notified Area Committee till regular Municipality/ Notified Area Committee are constituted. Findings of this court. 23. After hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the fact and circumstances of this case this court finds that the foundational fact with regard to acquisition of land for the purposes of railway siding is not in dispute. The land acquisition notification is corresponding to land acquisition case no. 5 of 1986 and Case no. 6 of 1986-87. Apparently numerous orders have been passed in the present case relating to quantification of taxes by the Notified Area Committee. However, the exact date of constitution of Notified Area Committee, Jamtara is not on record. 24. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Dwarika Nath Prasad versus State of Bihar wherein the Notified Area Committee itself was constituted after the coming into force of Bihar Municipal Ordinance Amendment, 1994 [came into effect from 30.05.1994] and accordingly all the action taken by the Notified Area Committee constituted after 30.05.1994 were vitiated. On the other hand, the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Gamaria Nagrik Samiti versus State of Bihar which refers to Section 390-C of the Municipal Act whereby there is a saving clause and continuity of existing notified area committee has been provided for . Section 390 C is quoted as under: - “ 390C. Savings- The Municipalities, the Notified Area Committees on the commencement of this ordinance shall cease to function as such and the same shall be constituted, in the manner and under the provisions of this Act and such area may be declared, by notification in accordance with the provisions of sub clauses (i) and (ii) or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act as Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, provided that if any Municipal Area or Notified Area or part thereof is in the opinion of the State Government not capable or being declared as a Municipality under the provisions of this Act, such area or part thereof may be governed by the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 19, 1993). 11 Provided further, notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, the Municipality and the Notified Area Committee which were validly constituted under the B & O Municipal Act, 1922 (B & O Act 7,1922) shall continue to function till the constitution and the first meeting of the Municipality. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, any thing done or any action taken by the Municipal authority or the N. A. C. in exercise of any power conferred by or under the B. Q. & O. Municipal Act, 1922 (B. & O. Act 7 of 1922), shall be deemed to have been done or taken by the Municipality or the Panchayat, as the case may be, under the provisions of this Act, or the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 19, 1993). (3) The provisions of the Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Bihar and Orissa Act 7, 1922.” 25. The grievance of the petitioner is in connection with the liability both for pre-amendment and post amendment period and the quantification of liability is also in dispute as the liability has been fastened without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is required to be taken care of by taking into consideration as to whether the Jamtara Notified Area Committee was in existence prior to 30.05.1994 [the date on which Bihar amendment to Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act was made effective] or Jamtara Notified Area Committee which has imposed the liability came into existence after 30.05.1994 and taking care of other government notifications issued thereafter. In the absence of the exact date of coming into force of concerned Jamtara Notified Area Committee, the point raised by the petitioner that the entire liability/demand raised after 30.05.1994 is null and void cannot be decided in these writs proceeding. The fact also remains that the liability has been fastened upon the petitioner without giving opportunity of hearing and therefore the petitioner is also aggrieved by the quantum of liability. 26. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Jamatara would be the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner with respect to his liability prior to 30.05.1994 and also post 30.05.1994 and also pursuant to creation of the Jamtara Nagar Panchayat in the year 2006 vide notification no. 373 dated 06.02.2006 12 published in Jharkhand Gazettee Extraordinary No. 76 dated 15.02.2006 [annexure-A to counter affidavit dated 03.09.2012]. Certain liability involved in the present case is also for the period post 2006. 27. Accordingly, Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Jamatara is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations made by this court and upon filling of a representation within three months from today with respect to the liability of each period and pass a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. The petitioner shall produce the records of the writ petitions along with the judgments which have been mentioned above and also a copy of the applicable provisions of law. 28. It is observed that the date of Notification of Jamtara Notified Area Committee will have a bearing in this case and therefore the reasoned order should clearly reflect the date of the notification of Jamtara Notified Area Committee. 29. The payment made by the petitioner would be the subject to the final outcome of the representation to be filed by the petitioner pursuant to this order. 30. These writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13