The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.222 of 2015 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. ----- Appellants 1. Dinesh Prasad 2. Bukhala Linda 3. Munni Linda Versus ----- Petitioner/Respondent ---- Respondents/Porforma Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -------
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellants For the Resp.No.1 For the Resp.No.2 & 3 : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Adv. : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Adv. ------- 23/23.01.2024 Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C)-I, Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.6487 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the respondent no.1 herein was allowed and S.A.R. Appeal No.178R-15/2014- 15 was dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C)-I that the Deputy Commissioner has the power to direct the Circle officer to prefer an appeal if it comes to his knowledge that an irregularity has been committed before the S.A.R. Court. In support of this contention learned State Counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 71A of the CNT Act, more particularly 2nd proviso to Section 71A as well as Section 46 (4)(A) of the said Act. It has been submitted that during the period 2003 to 2013-14 several irregularities were found to have been committed by the S.A.R. Officer which led to conducting an inquiry and in the inquiry it was found that the structure which was present in the land in question was aged about 25 years. It has been submitted that the structure itself has been found to have been constructed after -2- the coming into advent of Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation 1969. The same would trigger the 2nd Proviso to Section 71A of the CNT Act and therefore the Deputy Commissioner was within his domain to have directed the Circle Officer to have registered an appeal against the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14. It has been submitted that learned Single Judge did not at all consider the relevant provisions of the CNT Act and the power of the Deputy Commissioner to direct the Circle Officer to lodge an appeal against the order passed in SAR Case No.68 of 2013-14. 4. Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 writ petitioner has submitted that the SAR case was preferred under Section 71A of the CNT Act by the respondent no.5 and 6 in the writ petition with a prayer for grant of compensation and in the said case a finding was recorded that the structure in the said land was standing for a substantial period of time. Learned counsel while referring to the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 has also submitted that the question of limitation was considered thereafter taking recourse to 2nd Proviso to Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act and the writ petitioner was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.2,26,000/- per decimal to the respondent no.5 and 6 in the writ petition or to give an alternative land to the respondent no.5 and 6 and pursuant to the said order part payment has already been received by the
Decision
respondent no.5 and 6 of the writ petition. 5. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and 3 (respondent no.5 and 6 in the writ petition) has reiterated what has been submitted by Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. He has further submitted that the application preferred before the S.A.R. Court by the respondent no.5 and 6 in the writ petition was not for restoration but was only for compensation and in fact in the order itself it has come that the house was constructed in the year 1954-55 which is much prior to the coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation 1969. -3- 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the records of the case. 7. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the land measuring 5.4 Kathas in Khata No.1023, Plot No.1533 and 1534 of Mauza Hinoo, Thana No.225 was originally recorded in the name of the landlord of village Jugal Kishor Bhagat. Subsequently the lands in question were settled with Kamta Singh in permanent Bandobasti with transferable and inheritable Chhaparbandi Right by the erstwhile landlord Yugal Kishor Bhagat. The land lord had filed a Jamabandi return at the time of vesting of Jamindari in the Government records and the said lands were shown as Chapparbandi land in possession of Kamta Singh and Sita Ram Singh. The said Kamta Singh and Sita Ram Singh who had absolute and indivisible right and interest over the property in question had executed a sale deed in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner vide deed dated 26.11.1990. The land was mutated in the name of Raj Kumari Devi and a case was registered as Mutation Case No.712 of 1991-92 and the said land was mutated in the name of the mother of the petitioner namely Raj Kumari Devi. The respondent no.5 and 6 to the writ application had filed S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 under Section 71A of the CNT Act wherein they had prayed for adequate compensation as they claim to have been dispossessed from the land by the petitioner since the last 35-40 years. The petitioner had appeared in S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 and had filed his reply and finally vide order dated 30.8.2013 the S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay compensation @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per decimal or provide an alternative land to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to the writ petition. On the basis of a private complaint the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had conducted an inquiry and based on the findings of the inquiry had directed the Circle Officer to prefer an appeal which was registered as S.A.R. -4- Appeal No.178R-15 of 2014-15 and being aggrieved the writ petitioner had preferred W.P.(C) No. 6487 of 2014 which was allowed on 19.2.2015 and which is the order impugned in the present appeal. 8. Though it has been submitted by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned S.C. (L & C)-I that the inquiry report had come to a finding that the pucca building had come into existence for 25-30 years but on a perusal of the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the S.A.R. Officer in S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 finding has been recorded that even the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to the writ petition had admitted the existence of a structure on the land in question 55 years prior to the institution of the case. 9. The finding recorded by the S.A.R. Officer in S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 therefore demolishes the contentions of the appellant that the building was in existence for 25-30 years and in such circumstances therefore there is no question on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to invoke 2nd Proviso to Section 71A of the CNT Act. It is no doubt true that the Deputy Commissioner does have the power to give a direction to prefer an appeal but in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Deputy Commissioner was precluded from exercising such power, since as has been noted above, based on the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer in S.A.R. Case No.68 of 2013-14 that the building was in existence for about 55 years. 10. In such circumstances therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 19.02.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.6487 of 2014. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Shamim/- (Deepak Roshan, J.)