The High Court
Case Details
1 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3427 of 2017 Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. having its corporate office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, through its Law Officer Sri Mithlesh Kumar, son of Sri R.B. Choudhary, Resident of Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribagh 3. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribagh 4. The Circle Officer, Sadar Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribagh 5. Swarup Chatterjee, son of Sanant Chatterjee, resident of 111, Kali Krishna Taigore Road, Alam Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Alam Bazar, Kolkatta-700035 …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the petitioner that a coordinate Bench of this Court in the common judgment in W.P. (C) No. 2353 of 2017, W.P. (C) No. 2364 of 2017, W.P. (C) No. 2543 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 2563 of 2017 has passed order dated 03.01.2024 in which the four private persons whose names does not appear in the said Rent 6 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, has passed order, in respect of the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh is perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same has been passed on flimsy grounds. Hence, it is submitted that the same be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 that this writ petition is bad in law as the four persons namely Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi, Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi in whose favour the impugned judgment in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, have not been impleaded as respondents and behind their back, no adverse order can be passed making them aggrieved. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 that Public Work Department has started illegal construction over the land in question and W.P. (C) No. 1327 of 2017 was filed for restraining the Road Construction Department, Road Division, Hazaribagh from constructing structure over the raiyati land of the respondents and a coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.03.2017 without going into the merits of the case directed the competent 7 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 authority/Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to consider the representation of the petitioner of the said W.P. (C) No.1327 of 2017 in accordance with the law after verification of the relevant records. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 that the petitioner has not brought any chit of paper regarding the acquisition of the land in question. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5 that Annexure-1 and 2 which is purported to be the document regarding acquisition does not bear any khata number and certainly they are not the lands which is subject matter of the Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012; therefore Annexure-1 and 2 are the relevant documents so far as this writ petition is concerned. Hence, it is submitted that there being no merit in this writ petition, the same be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.5; the four legal heirs namely Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi, Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi who are undisputedly, the legal heirs of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore- who is the undisputed kewatdar of the Estate have not been impleaded as parties to this writ petition though the impugned judgment of this Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 dated 28.05.2013 has been passed in their favour. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that the alleged land notification acquisition filed by the petitioner as 8 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 Annexure-1 and 2 does not bear any khata number and the same falls short of establishing that they are the documents in respect of the land which is subject matter of Rent Assessment Appeal No.19 of 2012. The Circle Officer, Hazaribagh has in no uncertain manner mentioned that the land which is subject matter of Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 stands recorded in the revenue record in the name of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore as kewatdar who is ancestor of the said four surviving legal heirs of him. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in allowing the rent assessment appeal. Further as the said four legal heirs of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore have not been impleaded as respondents in this writ application, without any rhyme or reason, even though setting aside the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 will affect them adversely, hence, for this reason also the prayer made in this writ petition as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment; cannot be allowed. Thus, this writ application is dismissed being without any merit. 12. The petitioner if they so desire may approach the appropriate civil court if they are under the impression that any cloud has been cast by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on their claimed title over the land in respect of which Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 has been passed. But it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion regarding the 9 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 merits of the claim of the petitioner, regarding his title over the land in question. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in 2 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 and also to quash the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Revision No. 59 of 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wrongly the petitioner has made a prayer to quash the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Revision No. 59 of 2013 and the petitioner does not pray to quash the said order and confines his prayer to quash the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 only. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.5 filed Rent Assessment Appeal No. 19 of 2012 against the order dated 14.08.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Hazaribagh in Rent Assessment Case No. 01 of 2009-10 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the petition for assessment of rent filed by the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 of this writ petition was authorized by Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi, Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi as their lawful attorney by executing general power of attorney dated 03.09.2008 to do all the necessary work including to manage, develop the land and to take steps for revenue matters/assessment and the said four principals of the said general power of attorney are the descendants of the recorded tenant of the land in question namely Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore. 3 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 5. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh found as per the Anchal Amin report that some portion of the lands has been encroached by other persons though the descendants of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore have right, title over 8.75 ‰ acres of land. Therefore, the Circle Officer recommended for assessment of the rent of the land in the names of the said four descendants of the original kewatdar - Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that plot no. 654/1108 under khata no.203 contains the building of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a letter to the circle officer which reveals that plot no. 1107 under khata no. 203 of area 2.95 acres is the land of the Electricity Board. The S.D.O. held that the said four legal heirs of the original kewatdar- Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore had no possession over the land. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in the impugned judgment observed that information received by the P.W.D. office that plot no. 652/1108 of an area 2.70 acres under khata no. 204 is the land situated for the building; contradicts the observation of the S.D.O. that plot no. 652/1108 of an area 1.75 acres under khata no. 204 is the land on which P.W.D. building is situated. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh further considered that the information received under Right to Information Act revealed that the land measuring 0.33 acres of the plot no.1107 under khata no. 01 has been acquired for the office of building of Electricity Board and this document contradicts the observation of the S.D.O. that the land of plot no. 652/1108 under khata no. 203 has been 4 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 occupied by the building of the Electricity Board, Hazaribagh- the petitioner and upon such observation, the Deputy Commissioner held that the S.D.O. has wrongly mentioned in its order dated 14.08.2010 that circle officer has found possession of the petitioner with regard to the land in question though the circle officer in no uncertain terms has found the four legal representatives of the original kewatdar- Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore to be in possession of 5.07 acres out of 8.75 ‰ acres of land consisting in three different plots being (1) khata no. 202, plot no. 652/1108, (2) khata no. 203 plot no. 652/1107 and (3) khata no. 204, plot no. 652/1106. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in its impugned judgment also considered that hukumnama dated 20.05.1929 revealed that the then Deputy Commissioner granted hukumnama in favour of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore settling the land of khata no. 204, plot no. 652/1106 measuring 1.75 acres to the said Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore in Settlement Case No.611 of 1929-30 over which the circle officer found the said four legal heirs of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore to be in possession of. In respect of plot no.652/1108 measuring 3.39 ‰ acres of land, it was observed that Cadastral survey of the year 1911 shows that under the ex-landlord Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore was the owner of khewat no. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh also mentioned the details of genealogy of the said four descendants of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore and directed the circle officer to fix up rent for the assessment of the rent for the lands measuring 8.75 ‰ acres of the said four plots of land 5 W.P. (C) No.3427 of 2017 realizable since the vesting of the Estate from the four descendants of Prafulla Nath Thakur @ Tagore namely Sumita Tagore, Ratna Devi, Champa Haldhar and Malti Devi. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after lapse of several decades, the respondent no.5 has made the application before the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Deputy Collector. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been in legal physical possession of the land situated at khata no.202, plot no. 652/1108 of which the respondent no.5 was not in physical possession. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Circle Officer, Sadar in his report stated that the land measuring 1.96 acres situated at khata no. 202, plot no. 1108 is in physical possession of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner is running in the record of rights. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came in possession over 2.95 acres of land which includes the land measuring 1.46 acres under khata no. 202, plot no. 652/1108 in Mouza- Cantolment, Thana no. 157 and the possession of the same was handed over by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh to the petitioner on 24.06.1982. It is next submitted by the learned