Madan Mohan Mahto aged about 69 years, son of Late Sarbeshwar Mahto, resident of v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5392 of 2018 Madan Mohan Mahto aged about 69 years, son of Late Sarbeshwar Mahto, resident of village Tanr Mohanpur Rehabilitation Site, P.O. Jainamore, P.S. Jaridih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. Versus … … Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its Office at Project Building, Sector-III, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro at Camp-II, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 3. The Directorate of Project Lands and Rehabilitation at Camp-II, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. The Director, Directorate of Project, Lands and Rehabilitation, at Camp-II, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5.Sharda Devi, (widow) 6. Falguni Mahto (son) 7. Raghu Nath Mahto (son) Residents of village-Tanr Mohanpur, P.O.-Jainamore, P.S. Jaridih, District-Bokaro, all legal heirs of Laru Mahto (respondent nos. 5,6,7 impleaded vide order dated 02.07.2024) CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY … … Respondents --- For the Petitioner For the State For the Resp. 5 to 7
Legal Reasoning
herein has been passed in compliance of order passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017 dated 25.04.2018. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Authority has committed serious error of record in passing the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter arises out of acquisition of land for establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant and for the purposes of settlement of persons, interalia, three separate family numbers were issued to Sarbeshwar Mahto bearing no. 218, Habulal Mahato bearing family number 222 and Laru Mahato bearing family no. 224. It is submitted that vide Annexure-7 to the present writ petition, provisional slip was issued by the Director Project, Lands and Rehabilitation, (Bokaro Steel Project), Dhanbad in favour of Sarbeshwar Mahato as back as on 03.09.1965. The learned counsel has also submitted that subsequently, vide Annexure-9, dated 2 13.06.2017, it was shown in the name of Sarbeshwar Mahato, Habulal Mahato and Laru Mahato. 6. The learned counsel submits that being aggrieved by aforesaid action on the part of the respondents, a writ petition was filed being W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2018 directing the Director of Directorate of Project, Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro (respondent no.5 in the said case and respondent no.4 in the present case) to pass appropriate order. A fresh order has been passed which is under challenge. 7. The learned counsel submits that the Authority has committed serious error of record while passing the order and has not taken into consideration the aforesaid foundational fact that three separate family numbers were allotted to the three persons and therefore their right could not have been intertwined. He has also submitted that reference has been made to the Award no. 161 with which the purcha of the petitioner has no concern. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order be set aside and the case be decided on merits by this Court on the basis of materials placed in the writ record. 8. Upon a query by this court with respect to the proceeding which has taken place pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017, wherein a direction was issued to notice the concerned parties and pass order after giving due opportunity of hearing, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was for the concerned authority to take appropriate action as per the order passed by this court in WPC No. 7423 of 2017 and the petitioner is not responsible for the same. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors representing the legal heirs of Laru Mahato has opposed the prayer. However, during the course of hearing she has also not been able to satisfy this Court as to whether the intervenors were granted any opportunity of hearing though the order impugned is in favour of the intervenors. Upon this, she has submitted that the matter may be remitted so that the petitioner as well as the intervenors be heard in the matter and appropriate order be passed. 3 10. The learned counsel for the State is also not in a position to satisfy this court as to whether pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017 dated 25.04.2018 any opportunity of hearing was granted to the intervenor. However, from the records of this case no such material has been pointed out and the impugned order does not reflect that any opportunity of hearing was given to the intervenors claiming to be the legal heirs of Laru Mahato and also to Habulal Mahato or his legal heirs or successors. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the dispute cropped up on account of the reason that the document as contained in Annexure-7, which is the provisional slip in favour of the displaced person dated 03.09.1965, was issued solely in the name of Sarbeshwar Mahato, but subsequently it was shown to have been issued in the name of three persons namely, Sarbeshwar Mahato, Laru Mahato and Habulal Mahato vide document dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-9). The said document as contained in Annexure-9 was challenged before this Court in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.
Arguments
--- : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Yadu Nandan Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate --- 14/28.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “(i) For quashing of the order dated 29.09.2018 (as contained Annexure-4 to this writ application) passed by the Director, Directorate Project Lands & Rehabilitation, Bokaro (respondent no.4), whereby and whereunder he has rejected the objection/ application dated 01.06.2018 filed by the petitioner. (ii) For quashing of the Parcha bearing No. 994 dated 13.06.2017 (as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application) issued under the signature of Project Director, Directorate Lands & Rehabilitation, Bokaro, whereby the lands of village Tanr Mohanpur, R.T. No. 12, Khata No. 1, Khesra No.7, Rehabilitation Plot No. 15, measuring an area of 0.75 acres has been settled in favour of Sarbeshwar Mahto, Habu Lal Mahto and Laru Mahto in so far as it relates to the settlement of lands in question to Habu Lal Mahto and Laru Mahto. (iii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing and commanding upon concerned respondent to correct the same original impugned Parcha issued vide no. 994 dated 13.06.2017 only in the name of Sarbeshwar Mahto by deleting the names of Habu Lal Mahto and Laru Mahto from the said Parcha. (iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents not to disturb the petitioner and his heirs from the peaceful and legal possession of land in question.” 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order as contained in Annexure-4 which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 929 dated 29.09.2018. The impugned order
Decision
7423 of 2017 and the writ petition was disposed of with the following direction which is quoted as under:- “Para no. 6.- In view of the submission made on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a fresh objection/application before the respondent no. 5 against the issuance of ‘Parcha’ dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-7/1 to the writ petition). The respondent no. 5, on receipt of the said objection/application and on issuance of notices to the concerned parties and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned persons, shall pass appropriate order and shall take consequential steps in accordance with law preferably within a period of the the date of from four months objection/application of the petitioner.” filing of 12. From the perusal of party position in the writ petition it is apparent that the writ petition was filed by son of Sarbeshwar Mahato but neither Laru Mahato nor Habulal Mahato nor their legal heirs were made party although the document dated 13.06.2017 4 ( Annexure-9) was in the name of Sarbeshwar Mahato, Laru Mahato and Habulal Mahato. However, this Court while disposing of the writ petition had clearly indicated that the respondent no. 5 was to issue notice to the concerned parties and pass appropriate order after hearing them. The records reveal that no such opportunity of hearing was granted to Habulal Mahato/ Laru Mahato and/or their legal heirs and successors and fresh order as contained in Annexure-4 has been passed. In this case also, initially the petitioner (son of Sarbeshwar Mahato) did not make the legal heirs of Laru Mahato or Habulal Mahato as respondents, but the legal heirs of Laru Mahato have filed intervention application and such intervention has been allowed by this court vide order dated 02.07.2024 and a counter affidavit has also been filed opposing the prayer. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed without complying the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017 dated 25.04.2018 in letters and spirit. The Director of Directorate of Project Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro [respondent no. 5 of the said writ petition being WPC No. 7423 of 2017 ] was required to issue notice not only to the legal heirs of Laru Mahto but also to the legal heirs of Habulal Mahato in whose favour the entry was made. The legal heirs of Habulal Mahato have not filed any intervenor application opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner but at the same time, the earlier order passed by this Court have not been complied properly. 14. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 having not been passed in consonance with the order passed in WPC No. 7423 of 2017 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to The Director, Directorate of Project, Lands and Rehabilitation at Camp-II, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand (respondent no. 4 of this writ petition) to pass a fresh order in strict compliance with a direction which was issued by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017 after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties (namely Sarbeshwar Mahato, Laru 5 Mahato and Habulal Mahato) or their legal heirs. Petitioner is the son of Sarbeshwar Mahato who has expired and the intervenor respondents claim to be the legal heirs and successors of Laru Mahto. Habulal Mahto and /or his legal heir or successor or legal representative is also required to be heard for which the notice is required to be issued in terms of paragraph 6 of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017. 15. The respondent no. 4 is directed to pass fresh order in terms of the order passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro is directed to depute a person to represent the State before the respondent no. 4. The petitioner, the intervenor, and the appropriate authority to be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to represent the state shall appear before the respondent no. 4 on 25.11.2024. 16. Appropriate steps be also taken by the respondent no. 4 to seek appearance of Habulal Mahato or his legal heirs and successors as the case may be and pass fresh order in terms of order passed in W.P. (C) No. 7423 of 2017 within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The order to be passed be communicated to the concerned parties through speed post. 17. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6