Property rights are constitutional rights under Article 300A and cannot be infringed without due process and adherence to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the Order dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, wherein the claim of the petitioner for removal of land bearing Sub Plot No. 183/A (R.S. Plot No. 183), Sub-Plot No. 183/A/1 under Khata No. 113/119, P.S. No. 140 in Mauza Bajra, Anchal Hehal, PS Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi admeasuring 5 (five) decimals from the “Prohibited List” has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the subject matter of the dispute is related to land bearing Sub Plot No. 183/A (R.S. Plot No. 183), Sub-Plot No. 183/A/1 under Khata No. 113/119 that was purchased by the father of the petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 12.09.1985 and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was duly entered in the Register II. When the petitioner tried to sell the subject land, he was informed in the Registry Office that the subject land has been put in the “Prohibited List” and was further not responded by the Resp. No. 2 and 3 against his representation made to them, the petitioner had filed a writ petition WP(C) No. 273 of 2023.

Thereafter, when the respondent authorities did not comply with the order, the petitioner filed a contempt application and during midst of the proceeding the State authorities have passed a reasoned order. Finally, this Court vide its order dated 10.05. 2024 disposed of Cont. Case 15 of 2024 with liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the Reasoned Order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi rejecting the claim of petitioner for removal of the subject land from the “Prohibited List”.

3. The issue in the present writ application is squarely covered by the judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand). For brevity, relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:

“9. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be appropriate to examine the important issues involved in the instant writ petition:

(I) Whether the entry of the land in the prohibited list of NGDRS has civil consequences?

(II) Whether the Respondent-State can put the land in the prohibited list under NGDRS without following due procedure of law and the principles of natural justice?

10. Having gone through the records of the case and after hearing the rival contention of the parties across the bar, it is an admitted fact that the land forming subject matter of the instant case was settled in the favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner, namely Hari Prasad Agarwal in the year 1948 through a registered patta bearing number 1167 of 1948. The land was thereafter sold one to another individual namely Lalita Bhanote vide a registered sale deed dated 31st of March 1989. The Petitioner purchased the land in the year 2007 vide a registered sale deed dated 30th of November 2007. After the Petitioner purchased the land, she filed an application for mutation which was allowed vide order dated 24th of December 2007 and revenue rent receipts was issued in the favour of the Petitioner.

11. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 11th of November 2022 will show that the land was marked as ‘suspicious’, and it was only on the basis of the same that the land forming subject matter of the instant writ petition was put in the prohibited list. The Respondent-State has not countered the fact that notices were not issued to the Petitioner prior to the jamabandi of the Petitioner being marked as ‘suspicious’ or before the land was entered in the prohibited list of NGDRS.

12. It is trite law that right to property and its enjoyment is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram and Ors. reported in 2007 10 SCC 448 has held that the right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and if there is any entity claiming a su