Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Barnad Dungdung - Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W. P. (C) No. 5090 of 2003 with W. P. (C) No. 5227 of 2003 with W. P. (C) No. 5238 of 2003 with W. P. (C) No. 5887 of 2003 with W. P. (C) No. 4727 of 2003
Decided On : 21-05-2020
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act - Section 49 and 49(5) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 166 - Members of Scheduled Tribe Community - Registration of sale deed - Rules of Executive Business governing - Co-operative Society for achieving its aims and objects entered into an agreement for sale with land owners of Plot - Land owners of plot in question made an application to competent authority namely, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) which was registered as Case - After holding necessary inquiry, respondent no. 4 granted permission under Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act to sale 73 decimals of said land for valuable consideration in favour of respondent no. 5 vide order with condition to deposit 50% of the sale price in the shape of National Savings Certificate in name of the vendors and the remaining 50% in Savings Bank Account of vendors after deducting the advance, if any - Held, In view of discussions made hereinabove it is abundantly clear that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing by respondent no. 2 and accordingly the impugned orders becomes unsustainable in eye of law and such orders passed in Case No. 5/Aadi-Misc. Cases and Writ Petitions respectively are hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remanded back to respondent no. 2 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties to proceedings - Consequent to quashment of impugned orders notice issued by Circle Officer, Town Ranchi which are also the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) are also hereby quashed and set aside - Writ applications are allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The petitioners are members of Scheduled Tribe communities and members of a Cooperative Society formed for providing housing facilities, which entered into agreements for land sale with landowners (!) (!) .
The landowners obtained permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act) from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, after necessary inquiries, with conditions including deposit of a portion of the sale consideration in National Savings Certificates and bank accounts (!) (!) .
The sale deeds were registered, and the petitioners took possession of the land, which was subsequently mutated in their names and on which they constructed residences (!) (!) .
The permission granted for the land transfer was later set aside by an order passed in a suo-motu case initiated by the State Government, which led to the annulment of the transfer and the sale deeds (!) (!) .
The orders setting aside the land transfers were issued without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, which is a violation of principles of natural justice (!) (!) .
The orders were passed beyond the statutory period of limitation specified in Section 49(5) of the CNT Act, which restricts the annulment of transfers to within 12 years from the date of permission (!) (!) .
The respondent authorities, including the respondent no. 2 (a minister), acted under the authority of the Rules of Executive Business, which prescribe that cases are to be disposed of by or under the authority of the in-charge minister, and such acts are quasi-judicial in nature (!) (!) .
The orders under challenge were passed by the respondent no. 2, who was the Minister in charge of Revenue and Land Reforms, exercising powers under the CNT Act, which includes the authority to annul transfers if the conditions for such action are met (!) .
The petitioners' argument that they were not given proper notice or opportunity to be heard, and that the orders were passed without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions, is upheld. Consequently, the impugned orders are deemed unsustainable and are quashed (!) .
The case is remanded back to the authority for passing fresh orders after providing all necessary parties, including the petitioners, an opportunity of hearing, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and procedural safeguards (!) .
All related notices and proceedings that were subject to challenge are also quashed and set aside (!) .
The overall decision favors the petitioners, and the writ applications are allowed, with all pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further assistance.
JUDGMENT :
C. A. V. Order
Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these writ applications, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. J. P. Jha , learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 5090 of 2003, W.P.(C) No. 5227 of 2003 and 5238 of 2003; Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4727 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 5887 of 2003 and Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L & C) for the State – respondents in all the cases; Mr. Sarju Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor – respondent no. 6 in W.P.(C) No. 5090 of 2003 and 4727 of 2003.
W. P.(C) No. 5090 of 2003:
3. In this writ application, petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.04.2003 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 5/Aadi-Misc. Case No. 7/2001-02 by which the order dated 30.06.1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi granting permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act has been set aside.
4. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners are the members of the Scheduled Tribe Community and also bona-fide members of Lieven’s Co-operative Society (respondent no. 5) which was formed by the members of the Scheduled Tribes for providing housing facility to its members and it was registered under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act bearing registration no. 54/R-85.
5. The Co-operative Society for achieving its aims and objects entered into an agreement for sale with the land owners of Plot No. 612 of Khata No. 44 measuring an area of 73 decimals at Village Argora, District Ranchi. The land owners of the plot in question made an application to the competent authority namely, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) which was registered as Case No. 11/1986-87. After holding necessary inquiry, the respondent no. 4 granted permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘CNT Act’ for the sake of brevity) to sale 73 decimals of the said land for valuable consideration in favour of respondent no. 5 vide order dated 30.06.1987 with the condition to deposit 50% of the sale price in the shape of National Savings Certificate in the name of the vendors and the remaining 50% in the Savings Bank Account of the vendors after deducting the advance, if any.
6. Thereafter, the Co-operative society complied with the conditions regarding deposit of the amount and after necessary verification, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 21.12.1987 permitted the registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was accordingly registered by the land owners through registered deed of sale dated 19.12.1988 and prior to the execution of the sale deed, the verification was done regarding the deposit of the amount in the concerned pass-book.
7. It has been stated that the name of the Society was mutated by the Circle Officer, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 711/1987-88 and rent receipts were also granted in favour of the society. The respondent no. 5 thereafter divided the plot into several sub-plots and after due allotment of the sub-plots, transferred the same to the petitioners by executing registered deed of sale in favour of the petitioners and other members of the society.
After registration of the sale deed, the petitioners came in possession of the land purchased by them and are in continuous possession of the same.
8. The petitioners in the month of September 2003 came to know that the permission granted by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the respondent no. 5 has been set aside and the transfer has been annulled. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that for setting aside the permission granted by the respondent no. 4, the State Government had suo-motu registered Case No. 5/Aadi-Misc. Case No. 7/2001-02 against the respondent no. 5 in which the respondent no. 2 vide order
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
