Hari Satya Gope, aged about 66 years, Son of Late Bhabataran Majee, Resident of v. 1. M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government Company
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 86 of 2022 Hari Satya Gope, aged about 66 years, Son of Late Bhabataran Majee, Resident of Village-Egarkund, P.O. & P.S. - Kumardhubi, Dist. Petitioner Dhanbad … … Versus 1. M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government Company having its registered Office at Sanctoria, represented by Managing Director, P.O. & P.S.- Dishergarh, Dist. Burdwan (West Bengal) 2. General Manager, M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kapasara Area, P.O.-Saraspahari, P.S.-Nirsa, Dist.-Dhanbad 3. The State of Jharkhand 4. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad 5. Circle Officer, Nirsa, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad 6. Additional Collector, Dhanabd, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad 7. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad 8. Manohar Mondal, Son of Late Babulal Mondal, Resident of Village- Merah, P.O. & P.S.-Chirkunda, Dist.-Dhanbad
Legal Reasoning
9. Mantu Mondal, Son of Paresh Mondal, Resident of Village- Merah, P.O. & P.S.- Chirkunda, Dist.- Dhanbad, Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Himani Das, Wife of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Resident of Ananda Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Hat, Kirti Nagar, P.S. Ausgram, Dist.- Burdman … … Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the Resp.-State --- : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Saurav, Advocate --- 12/26.07.2024 1. 2. The learned counsel for the parties are present. This civil review petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking review of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) Case No. 6293 of 2008 on 27.06.2018 on the ground of certain information which has
Decision
been obtained by the writ petitioner after disposal of the writ petition. It has also been alleged that there is an element of fraud and misrepresentation before this Court inasmuch as the respondents have 1 disputed the title of the petitioner although, as per the information received under right to information, the property belongs to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel has referred to the information so received contained in page 64 to 66 of the writ petition and he submits that the name of the land owner i.e. the petitioner is reflecting in serial No. 72 as per the records maintained by Eastern Coalfields Limited. 4. He has also submitted that the writ petition was inter alia filed challenging the order dated 14.11.1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad and also order dated 25.02.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in CNT Case No. 01 of 1991 wherein the required permission under Section 49 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for transfer of the property by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is title dispute in connection with the property involved in the present case. 5. The learned counsel submits that a review petition is maintainable on account of subsequent discovery of facts and also on account of fraud committed by the respondents while presenting the incorrect facts before this Court. 6. The learned counsel submits that while passing the order under review this Court has given liberty to the writ petitioner to get the right, title, interest and possession declared from a competent court of civil jurisdiction although as per document received under right to information, there is no dispute in connection with the title of the property with the petitioner and therefore there is no need to go civil court for declaration of right, title and interest. 7. He submits that such observation given by this Court in the order under review is unnecessarily coming in the way of the petitioner in their full enjoyment of the property. 8. The learned counsel has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 3SCC 581 to submits that the legal remedy available in case of fraud is to file a review petition. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Eastern Coalfields Limited has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the order 2 under review itself there is reference of sale deed executed in connection with the property involved in the present case and there is rival claim with regard to right, title, interest and possession for the private respondent and the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited has no jurisdiction to decide the title of one or the other person. 10. The learned counsel has referred to the submission of the respondents mentioned in Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 as recorded in the the order under review. 11. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sale deed executed by Jamini Bala Dasi was executed by an imposter as Jamini Wala Das had expired on 16.02.1966 and the sale deed was executed on 31.03.1987 with respect to the property involved in the present case and therefore execution of such sale deed has no bearing in the case. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the cause of action to approach this Court was refusal of permission of under Section 49 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act on the ground that there was title dispute involved in the case. The facts have been narrated in the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 6293 of 2008 which also refers to execution of sale deed and also reveals rival claim in connection with the property involved and in such circumstances this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 as follows: - "12.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that both the parties, the petitioners as well as private respondents have placed documents in connection with their claim of possession, but they are seriously disputing each others title over the property. The impugned order relating to grant of permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been declined to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not satisfy the authority on the point of their title over the property and by the impugned order it has also been observed that the claim of title of Jamini Bala Dasi was also not substantiated. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order refusing to grant permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 has been rightly passed, but the same ought to have been subject to declaration of right, title and interest of the parties through competent court of civil jurisdiction. In view of the judgement relied upon by the counsel for the respondent reported in (1992) 4 SCC 61 this court is of the considered view that Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot be invoked to 3 decide the title dispute between the parties in connection with property. 13.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the parties to get their right, title, interest and possession declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Once the right,title, possession and interest of the parties are decided, then all consequences shall follow accordingly.” 13. This court is of the considered view that title dispute cannot be decided by this Court nor this Court can grant any declaration of title in favour of the petitioner on the basis of any information furnished to the petitioner by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited. This Court is further of the view of the if any third-party claims title over the land even the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited has no jurisdiction to decide the title of one or the other person. 14. So far as proposition of law that a review would lie in case the order is obtained by fraud or in case where there is a subsequent discovery of facts is concerned, there is no dispute in connection with such proposition. However, considering the facts, circumstances and the nature of disputes involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no element of fraud is involved in this case so far as Eastern Coalfields Limited is concerned, who have given information to the petitioner under right to information which has been used to seek review by this court through this petition. Further, this Court is not inclined to declare that the petitioner has undisputed title in over the property on the basis of the information which has been received by the petitioner through right of information. 15. No grounds for review have been made out by the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, this court finds no merit in this review petition and this petition is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Rakesh (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4