Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Ahalad Pandey S/o Late Bihari Lal Pandey - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1878 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Right to property is both a constitutional and human right; cannot be deprived without following due process of law. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - Any action with civil consequences must adhere to principles of natural justice; failure to do so renders the action invalid. (Paras 15, 16)
(C) Prohibited List - Inclusion of land in the prohibited list affects the right of enjoyment and transfer of property; such actions require adherence to due process. (Paras 11, 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the inclusion of her land in the prohibited list prepared by the Revenue Department, which she discovered while attempting to sell the land. The land had a history of being owned and mutated in her family, with no prior notice given before its inclusion in the prohibited list.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the inclusion of the land in the prohibited list without due process violated the petitioner's rights, leading to the conclusion that the registration of the land should be allowed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the inclusion of land in the prohibited list has civil consequences and whether the Respondent-State can do so without due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to property, as guaranteed under Article 300A, cannot be taken away without due process, and any administrative action with civil consequences must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the list of prohibited land (Annexure-6) issued for prohibition of registration of transfer of land, which is uploaded on the website of the Government of Jharkhand by the Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department. The petitioner has further sought issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent not to refuse registration of land in question.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the subject matter of the dispute is related to the land situated at Mouza Panduki, P.S. Govindpur, Mouza No. 90, New Khata No. 203 (Old Khata No.114), New Plot No. 3 (Old Plot No. 3), New Plot No. 25 (Old Plot No. 13), New Plot No. 90 (Old Plot No. 40), New Plot No. 503 (Old Plot No. 314), New Plot No. 507 (Old Plot No. 315), New Plot No. 534 (Old Plot No. 329), New Plot No. 547 (Old Plot No. 334), New Plot No.1047 (Old Plot No. 697), total area measuring 92 Decimals. The land belonged to the then landlord, which was sold to others including petitioner’s forefathers vide registered sale deed no. 4760 dated 25.06.1940. Under the sale deed no. 4760 dated 25.06.1940, the petitioner father’s name Bihari Lal Pandey also appeared. The raiyats who purchased the sale deed have been paying rent to the State Government. Also, the jamabandi was created in their favour bearing Jamabandi No. 104. Further online Register-II entry was also made in favour of the petitioner.
3. It has been stated that according to the circular issued by Department of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms vide Memo No. 06 dated 15.07.2020 the respondent had made online entry of the petitioner on the website. Thereafter, when the petitioner sought to sell his land, he came to know that the same is included in the prohibited list of land prepared by Department of Revenue. Hence, this writ application.
4. The issue in the present writ application is covered by the judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand):
“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.,2007 10 SCC 448 has held that the right t
The right to property is a constitutional right that cannot be deprived without due process, and administrative actions affecting property rights must adhere to natural justice principles.
Inclusion of property in a prohibited list without notice violates the right to property and principles of natural justice under Article 300A, rendering such administrative actions arbitrary and ille....
Inclusion of land in a prohibited list without notice violates natural justice, affecting property rights and necessitating adherence to due process.
Property rights are constitutional rights under Article 300A and cannot be infringed without due process and adherence to natural justice principles.
The inclusion of land in a prohibited list without due process violates property rights and natural justice principles, requiring procedural fairness in administrative actions.
The inclusion of land in the prohibited list of NGDRS without due process violates principles of natural justice and affects property rights, requiring adherence to legal procedures.
The right to property is a constitutional right that cannot be deprived without due process and adherence to principles of natural justice.
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
