Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 431
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2249 of 1992 ;
Decided On : MAY 18, 1999
The Deputy Commissioner does not have the authority to impose conditions for the transfer of raiyati land under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act beyond those specified in the Act, and any such conditions are illegal and arbitrary.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT', 'SUBJECT': 'TRANSFER OF LAND', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['SECTION 46', 'SECTION 47', 'SECTION 48', 'SECTION 49']}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), challenged the imposition of conditions by the Deputy Commissioner while granting permission for the transfer of raiyati land under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (C.N.T. Act). The conditions included payment of commercial rent to the State, employment to the vendor, purchase of stamps based on valuation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, and payment of the land price as determined by the Deputy Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner were illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act. The court found that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to impose such conditions, as the Act only required the Deputy Commissioner's written consent for the transfer of land.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to impose conditions for the transfer of raiyati land under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act. 2. Whether the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner were legal and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act and found that it only required the Deputy Commissioner's written consent for the transfer of land. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to impose additional conditions beyond those specified in the Act. 2. The court found that the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner were illegal and arbitrary. The court reasoned that the condition for payment of commercial rent was redundant as the Bihar Lands Reforms Act and Mineral Concession Rules already provided for the assessment and realization of rent. The court also held that the condition for employment to the vendor was illegal as it was not a case of compulsory acquisition of land and the vendor had voluntarily agreed to sell the land. The court further held that the conditions for purchase of stamps and payment of the land price based on the Deputy Commissioner's valuation were also illegal as they overrode the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, Registration Act, and the rules framed thereunder.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned memo containing the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ for quashing the direction of respondent No, 2, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad as communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 1872 dated 1-4-92 whereby the said authority has granted permission under Sec. 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act laying down four preconditions which are required to be complied with by the petitioner prior to registration of sale-deed.
2. The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (shortly B.C.C.L.) is a Government company primarily engaged in the activities of raising cooking coal which is used in Steel Plants, Thermal. Power Stations and other industries. For the purpose of its activities, the petitioner-Company purchased raiyati lands through registered, documents irons time to time from the raiyats who are not members of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste or Backward Class on payment of valuable consideration. It. is stated that respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner sought to impose a. blanket restriction regarding purchase of raiyati lands on the petitioner irrespective of the fact that the vendors are not the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class and the same has been conveyed under the signature of respondent No. 3, the Addl. Collector, Dhanbad vide his memo No. 4116 dated 7-12-89. A copy of the said memo has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is stated, that on receipt of Annexure-1 the petitioner gave a detailed reply queuing the relevant provisions and stating that no permission is required to be taken for sale and purchase of raiyati land of raiyats who are not the members of Scheduled Tribe, In reply to that, respondent No. 3 again reiterated that permission under Sec. 49(c) of the C.N.T. Act, is required to be: taken in each and every case. Petitioners further case is that by reason of the aforesaid letter dated 14-3-91 respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner illegally and without any authority of law has issued a circular to the effect that for sale of land the price of land shall not be less than the price fixed in the circular Respondent No, 3 also, by letter dated 11-7-91. prescribed a form for filing an application seeking permission to purchase the land. It is stated by the petitioner that when the lands are required by the petitioner for mining purposes or any other purposes incidental thereto the petitioner approaches the raiyat for purchase of such land through its officers/agents who after negotiations fix the price of the land and thereafter the vendor in compliance of the directions issued by respondent No, 2 applies in the prescribed form for according permission. The petitioner approached one Adhir Kumar Choube S/o Hari Prasad Choube of village Basuria for purchasing his land situated in Mouza Chhotki Boa and Par Boa appertaining to khata No. 11, plot No. 59 having an area of 12 decimals. The said prospective vendor is neither a member of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class. Petitioners further case is that after completion of negotiation for purchase of the said land the vendor applied in the prescribed form duly forwarded by G.M. (Estate) to respondent No. 2 for according permission for sale of his raiyati land. Respondent No. 2 said to have granted conditional permission under Sec. 49 of the C.N.T. Act, by putting various conditions. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the imposition of such conditions and also the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to put restriction on the transfer of land under Sec. 49 of the C.N.T. Act. A copy of the impugned memo No, 1872 dated 1-4-92 by which conditional permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner has been filed and annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application.
3. On 4-11-92, this writ, application was heard at the admission stage and the State Counsel was direct
