SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Jhk) 1059

N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Sudhir Prasad @ Sudhir Kumar Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
WP (Cri) No. 403 of 2009
Decided On : 24-02-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.K. Kanth, Sr, adv., and shailesh.
For the Respondent: A.K. kashyap, Sr, adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order granting permission for land transfer, even if erroneous, does not necessarily constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:

Land Transfer - Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - 49(2) - 49(5) - 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Deputy Commissioner, granted permission for the transfer of land to a Co-operative Society, which was later challenged in a criminal proceeding. The petitioner argued that the permission was granted in exercise of statutory power and should not be subject to criminal prosecution. The Vigilance contended that the petitioner granted permission in violation of the law and should be prosecuted.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's order granting permission was not a definitive judgment and did not enjoy protection under the Judges (Protection) Act. The court also analyzed the legal provisions and concluded that the allegations did not constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's order granting permission for land transfer and whether it constituted offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's order did not constitute a definitive judgment and therefore did not enjoy protection under the Judges (Protection) Act. The court also found that the allegations did not constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

R.R. Prasad, J.

1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Patna Sadar Vigilance P.S. case No. 29 of 2000 registered under Suctions 420, 467, 468 469, 471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of he Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The facts leading to this case are that in the year 1987, one R.M. Tigga and other being occupancy raiyats of the land filed an application u/s 49(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for according permission to them to transfer the lands, bearing plot Nos. 636, 637 and 638 pertaining to Khata No. 102, measuring in area of .71 acres situated at Mnuza Hinoo to Mahavir Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Dhurwa, Ranchi, a registered Co operative Society. On the soil application, a case was registered as Land Permission Case No. 9 of 1987-88. Similarly, Hardugan Munda and 9 others also filed an application for according permission to transfer the lands, bearing plot No. 635, 647 and 650, appertaining to Khate "40.57 and also plot No. 648 appertaining to Khata No. 174, measuring local area of 1.67 acres to the said Co-operative Society. On that application, land Permission Case No. 10 of 1987-88 was registered. Upon hearing, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Sri B.K.Sinha refused to grant permissioner to transfer the aforesaid lands to the Co-operative Society as according to him the purpose for which land has been sought to be transferred to Co-operative Society for constructing building, cannot be said to be reasonable and sufficient purpose. However, the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, Ranchi by way of appeal being Misc. Revenue Appeal No. 307 of 1987. While hearing the said appeal, the following question was formulated:

Whether or no the sale of the land to the Housing Co-operative Society for purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to been reasonable cause.

3. While dealing with the issue, learned Commissioner did observe that though certain purposes have been specified in the Act under which permission can be granted for transfer but there could be other purposes also not mentioned in the Act under which Deputy Commissioner can grant permission provided he finds the purpose to be reasonable and sufficient. Therefore, the case was remanded, vide its order dated 14.12.1987 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to consider the case afresh as to whether or not construction of the houses/building is a reasonable activity taking in to account that in the past there have been several instances of according permission of transferring the land to the Co-operative Societies for the construction of the building and that In the area, several colonies have come up and also the fact that whether sufficient land would be left with the transferors and that the rate negotiated is reasonable and also to ensure genuineness of the claim of the Co-operative Society of having land for the purpose of constructing building. Thereupon, the cases which had been remanded before the Deputy Commissioner for its consideration in the light of the observation made by the learned Commissioner, could not be taken up by the then Deputy Commissioner for couple of years. However, on 16.11.1990 raiyats, who were seeking permission filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on which date the petitioner was holding the office of the Deputy Commissioner, to the effect that the land for which permission has been sought to be transferred is not cultivable, rather it is a 'tarnd' land and as such they are not getting benefit out of it and, hence, they want to dispose it of so that money could be utilized for constructing/repairing of their houses. Therefore, the prayer was made to grant permission as in the past permissions have been accorded to the raiyats for transferring their land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top