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

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand - Appellant
Versus
M/s Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Limited & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 602 of 2019
Decided On : 07-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Harsh.

Headnote:

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Section 9 - Assigned in aforesaid interlocutory application - Quashing impugned notification - One Zamindari Limited owned and possessed agricultural land as well as land which were used purely for non-agricultural purposes - Out of land various transfers were made to different persons companies etc till year and names of transferees were duly mutated in revenue records and transferees have been paying rent of their respective land to State Government name of Zamindari Ltd was subsequently changed to Enterprises and Properties Ltd - In year a proceeding was initiated at behest of the then Additional Collector Lohardaga which was registered as Land Ceiling Case and vide notification Ceiling published in official gazette on altogether acres of land situated at different villages was declared surplus - Held, State Government has already come out with notification in this regard way back in year wherein it has been clarified that urban land/municipality land shall be outside purview of Act, 1961 - An another circular has been issued by State of Jharkhand on wherein land situated at will be outside purview of Act, 1961 have been declared as urban land – Admittedly land in question are situated at are within Municipal Corporation/Urban agglomeration and are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes and therefore action of State authority in applying provision of the Act, 1961 cannot be said to be justified because for purpose of declaring urban land to be surplus one relevant Act ought to have been applied Act, 1976, because if any provision has been made action of State authority must be based on basis of aforesaid provision and any deviation from same if committed by State will be held to be without jurisdiction - Appeal fails and stands Dismissed - Application(s) if any also stands Disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.6061 of 2020:

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for amendment in the cause title of the instant appeal to the extent that the performa respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 may be treated as appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. In view of the reasons assigned in the aforesaid interlocutory application, I.A. No.6061 of 2020 stands allowed and disposed of.

3. Office is directed to carry out the exercise.

I.A. No.958 of 2021:

4. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 731 days in filing the instant appeal.

5. In view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, the delay of 731 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.958 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.602 of 2019:

7. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1705 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the order impugned in the writ petition dated 26.11.2011 has been quashed and set aside.

8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder :

One M/s Ranchi Zamindari Limited owned and possessed agricultural land as well as the land which were used purely for non-agricultural purposes. Out of the said land, various transfers were made to different persons, companies’ etc. till the year 1962 and the names of the transferees were duly mutated in the revenue records and the transferees have been paying rent of their respective land to the State Government. The name of M/s Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. was subsequently changed to M/s Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Ltd. (the writ petitioner). In the year 1973, a proceeding was initiated at the behest of the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No.240 of 1973-74 and vide notification no. 139/Ceiling dated 19.11.1976 published in the official gazette on 01.12.1976, altogether 1382 acres of land (approximately) situated at different villages was declared surplus.

One M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification with respect to 735.94 acres of the aforesaid land belonging to the said company by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C No.84 of 1977(R). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.1979 by quashing the impugned notification to the extent of the subject matter of the writ petition, however, with a liberty to the revenue authority to issue notice to M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. treating it as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. Thereafter, a fresh proceeding was initiated vide Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82. In the meanwhile, the order passed by the Board of Revenue to exercise option under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961, which having not being implemented, an another writ petition was filed being C.W.J.C No. 2157 of 1989(R), wherein, vide order dated 14.12.1989, the writ petitioner was directed to approach the Board of Revenue for initiation of contempt proceeding for non-implementation of the order dated 25.04.1979. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a fresh petition on 20.12.1989 exercising option as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 and pursuant thereto, the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga allowed the writ petitioner to exercise its option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961. The writ petitioner had also filed a list of land which it wanted to retain. The State Government having received the option of the writ petitioner, vide memo no.772 dated 01.09.1995 informed it that out of the option exercised by it, 8.27 acres of land had already been acquired by various land holders and residentia

        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