Back
2011 Supreme(Jhk) 815
2012 (1) JCR 234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J
M/S Suman Industrial Corporation, a partnership Firm at Old Hazaribagh Road, Ranchi, through its partner Gyanchanda Sethi & Another ….. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Others ….. Respondents
C. W. J. C. No. 312 of 1998 (R)
Decided On: 1.9.2011
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners -M/s Anil Choudhary, K.K.Ambastha
For the Respondent No. 6 -Mr. P.P.N.Roy, Sr. Adv.
For the State -Mr. Srijit Choudhary, G.A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the heritability of occupancy right and the misconstruction of the right of occupancy by the lower courts.
Headnote:
Sikmi Land Dispute - Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act - Section 21, Section 22, Section 23 - The court discussed the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, particularly Section 21, Section 22, and Section 23, which protect occupancy-raiyat from eviction, provide for devolution of occupancy right on death of a Raiyat, and enumerate the rights of occupancy-raiyat. The court emphasized the heritability of occupancy right and the misconstruction of the right of occupancy by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner. The court ultimately set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, restoring the order of the Special Officer and directing the petitioners to pay compensation with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders directing them to pay compensation and restore land to the respondents. They claimed valid right title over the land, while the respondents argued that the land was part of tribal land and the orders were legal and justified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Officer's order directing compensation in lieu of restoration was not challenged by the respondents and was valid. It also highlighted the misconstruction of the right of occupancy by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner. The court ultimately set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, restoring the order of the Special Officer and directing the petitioners to pay compensation with interest.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the orders directing compensation and restoration of land, the heritability of occupancy right, and the misconstruction of the right of occupancy by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the heritability of occupancy right and the misconstruction of the right of occupancy by the lower courts, leading to the setting aside of their orders and the restoration of the Special Officer's order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, restored the order of the Special Officer, and directed the petitioners to pay compensation with interest.
By Court: In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30.1.1988 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi in S. A. R. Case No. 37/1983-84 (Annexure -10) whereby the petitioners were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-to the respondent Nos. 5-8 with respect to 0.22 Acres of land out of Revisional Survey Plot No. 703, Khata No. 58, Village -Kokar, P.S -Sadar, Thana No. 195, District Ranchi. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 26.12.1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S. A. R Appeal No. 152 R 15 of 1987-88 (Annexure -11) whereby the Additional Collector has dismissed the petitioners' appeal and passed order of restoration of the aforesaid land in favour of the private-respondents, though no appeal was filed by them against the order of compensation of the Special Officer. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 30.12.1997 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S. A. R Revision No. 34/1992 (Annexure – 12), upholding the said order of the Additional Collector.
2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a partnership Firm having its business at Old Hazaribagh Road, Ranchi, P.S -Lalpur, District -Ranchi whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of the said Firm. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased the suit land, for valuable consideration, measuring an area of 22 Decimals of R.S Plot No. 703 under Khata No. 40 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.2.1975 from the descendants of one Kolha Ram Dusadh. The said Kolha Ram Dusad was recorded as 'Sikmi Dakhalkar' with occupancy rights in the said Khata No. 40 in the Revisional Survey record of rights, finally prepared and published in the year 1935. The right of occupancy is heritable. There was custom prevalent in the village for acquisition of occupancy right even by the under Raiyats. Accordingly, Kolha Ram Dusadh, who was a Sikmidar, had acquired occupancy right which finds mention in the R. S record of right. After death of Kolha Ram Dusadh, his heirs inherited the said land. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased the said land from the heirs of Kolha Ram Dusadh and had acquired valid right title over the suit land. The private respondents had absolutely no right, title or concern over the suit land. However, they filed an application before the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi being S. A. R. Case No. 37/1983-84 claiming restoration of the said land in their favour. The Special Officer held that the land out of which Sikmi Khata was prepared is a part and parcel of Khata No. 58, Plot No. 703 which was recorded in the names of Lusa Uraon and Bhaku Uraon, sons of Madi Uraon and Most. Sudain, widow of Chhota Sukhram Uraon, who were members of the Scheduled Tribe and as such transfer of the said land in favour of a non-tribal was illegal. Learned Special Officer, however, held that since the purchasers have constructed permanent structure and running a factory, it will not be justified to dispossess them, but they are liable to pay compensation at the market value. He determined compensation amount as Rs. 1,30,000/-and directed the opposite party -petitioners to pay the said amount to the applicants - respondents. The petitioners challenged the said order in appeal, before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was registered as S. A. R Appeal No. 152 R 15 of 1987-88.
3. Learned Additional Collector heard the appeal and not only dismissed the petitioners' appeal, but also set aside the order of payment of compensation and directed to restore the land in favour of the private respondents.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred revision before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi being Ranchi Revision No. 34/1992. Learned Commissioner upheld the order of the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners subm
