Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
Second Appeal No. 465 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.465 of 2016 (Against the Judgment and decree dated 05.05.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2015) ------ 1. Rati Lal Mahato 2(a). Naresh Mahato, aged about 35 years 2(b). Umesh Mahato, aged about 32 years Both sons of late Tej Narayan Mahato, Both R/o Nijgram, Tola Kurmit, P.O. + P.S. –Baghmara, District –Dhanbad. 3. Jamuna Mahato @ Yamuna Pd. Mahato Sl. No. 1 & 3 are sons of Fulchand Mahato, residents of Vill-Keshargarh, Tola –Sodriadih, P.S. –Baghmara, P.O. –Nadkharki, Dist –Dhanbad. .... .... …. Appellants Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Block 2 Area, Dumara More, through its General Manager, P.S. –Baghmara, P.O. –Nawagarh, Dist –Dhanbad. ... .... …. Respondents ------ For the Appellants For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though this second appeal has been stated to have been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but from the contents of the appeal memo, it appears that it is an appeal under Section 87(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, against the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2015 by which the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad has held that the name of BCCL –respondent no.1 has rightly been directed to be entered into the record of rights and further ordered that the name of the applicants shall be entered in the revisional survey record of rights, in 1 Second Appeal No. 465 of 2016 the possession column, as the applicants are in possession of the suit land and allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal in part. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.1-BCCL filed an application under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 contending therein that the disputed land along with other lands have been acquired by the applicant-respondent no.1 company vide Land Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84 and after preparation of award, the possession of the acquired land has been entrusted to the petitioner- respondent no.1 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the acquisition of the land, the ownership of the land has been vested firstly with the government and then with the plaintiff- company. Hence, the name of the petitioner-respondent no.1- company be entered in the record of right as the petitioner- respondent no.1-company has right, title and possession over the disputed land since that day. The petitioner-respondent further pleaded that the disputed land has been acquired in accordance with law and at the time of acquisition, one-time land rent has been deposited with the government. Hence, the petitioner-respondent no.1 is not supposed to take the annual land revenue receipt in respect of the disputed land and the subsequent deposit of land revenue by the opposite party-appellants is illegal and not valid. The opposite party-appellants contended before the Revenue Officer that the opposite party–appellants have been paying revenue to the government and the opposite party-appellants are having house over the disputed land and the petitioner never came in possession of the 2 Second Appeal No. 465 of 2016 disputed land. The Revenue Officer considered the testimony of the only witness examined by the petitioner and the two witnesses examined by the opposite party no.2 as well as the documents produced by the parties including the documents relating to Land Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84 and found the said documents to be proper, on the basis of the evidence in the record and ordered to delete the name of the opposite party-appellants from the revenue record in respect of the disputed land and to enter the name of the petitioner-respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad, the opposite party-appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2015 in the court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad and by the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad considering the materials in the record, allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part as already indicated above. 5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Vishal Kumar submits that the learned court below has committed grave error of law by holding that the disputed land has been validly acquired and to enter the name of the petitioner- respondent no.1 in place of father of the appellants in the revenue records. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad being not sustainable in law be set aside. 6. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the disputed land having undisputedly been acquired 3 Second Appeal No. 465 of 2016 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act vide L.A. Case No. 28/83-84, the occupancy right of the opposite party-appellants, if any, has been extinguished and as the one-time revenue has been paid by the petitioner-respondent no.1, there is no further scope for continuing with or entering the name of any person whose land has been acquired for the purpose of collection of revenue in the revenue records and in the absence of any allegation of any illegality in the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84 and as the occupancy Raiyat, at the time of acquisition was undisputedly noticed and appeared and was aware about the Land Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84 and the award having been prepared in accordance with law, in the said land acquisition case and as the same has attained finality, the only corollary is that the name of the petitioner- respondent no.1 be entered in the revenue records and the same having been done, there is no merit in this appeal filed by the opposite party-appellants. Accordingly, the same be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no dispute that the disputed land has been acquired by the State Government along with other lands vide Land Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84. There is no dispute that the then occupancy Raiyat before the acquisition has been noticed and with his knowledge, the award was passed in the Land Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84. There is no allegation of any illegality having been committed in the proceedings of L.A. Case No. 28/83-84. The award 4 Second Appeal No. 465 of 2016 passed in L.A. Case No. 28/83-84 has not been challenged, hence the same has reached finality. 8. Under such circumstances, this court do not find any illegality in the order passed by the first appellate court being the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in not interfering with the order of the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad by which he ordered that the name of the petitioner-respondent no.1 be entered in the revenue records in respect of the disputed land after deleting the name of the father of the opposite party-appellants. 9. Therefore, this Court finds that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 11. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th February, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- 5