Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Express Residency Private Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (C) No.4933 of 2018
Decided On : 31-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition challenging letter directing restraint on land receipts and registration of sale-deeds - The petitioner sought quashing of a letter directing restraint on land transactions related to specific land, arguing lack of jurisdiction and violation of fundamental rights. (Paras 3-5)
(B) Legislative Powers - The court emphasized that the powers of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Committee do not extend to issuing binding directions to state officers. (Paras 15-16)
(C) Judicial Review - The court affirmed its authority to review legislative actions when they infringe upon fundamental rights. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a construction company, challenged a letter that restrained land revenue receipts and sale registrations for land it purchased, asserting the letter exceeded jurisdiction and was unconstitutional. (Paras 5-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found the letter's directives illegal, lacking authority, and quashed them, directing the registration of the sale-deed. (Paras 18-21)
Issues: The core issue was whether the letter's directives were within the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the directions were illegal as they exceeded the committee's powers, affirming the principle that legislative actions must align with constitutional provisions. (Paras 15-18)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent No.8 in spite of repeated calls.
3. This Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the letter No.1566 dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent No.5 to respondent No.2, 3 and 6 so far as it relates to directing them to restrain themselves from issuing the land receipts with respect to 34 kathas of land situated on Mauza- Ranchi, Thana No.205, Khata No.33, Plot No.591 until further orders.
4. The second prayer is for quashing the said letter No.1566 so far as it relates to the respondent No.5 directing the respondent No.4 to restrain itself from registering the sale and purchase of shops/plots in the building constructed on the said plot No.591 and to cancel the registration of sale- deed/lease-deed done in the past on the said land. Prayer has also been made for quashing the noting dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure-1) made by the respondent No.4 on the sale-deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.7 whereby and wherein the respondent No.4 has rejected the application of the petitioner for registering the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No.7 in the light of letter No.1566 dated 20.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.5 and further prayer to direct the respondent No.4 to immediately and forthwith register the sale-deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.7 in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act , 1908.
5. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner’s company in furtherance of its core activity of construction business purchased 37.5 kathas of land from M/s S.K. Enterprises vide registered sale-deed No.18710 dated 23.12.2005 in respect of the said plot No.591 which was said to be recorded in the RS Record of Rights in the name of Chinigia Oraon. Chinigia Oraon by virtue of registered Deed of Surrender, surrendered the land to the landlord of the village namely Baralal Kandarpnath Shahdeo and handed over the possession of the same. Baralal Kandarpnath Shahdeo settled the said plot No.591 with Sk. Rojid Mian by virtue of registered Deed of Settlement dated 04.08.1939 and handed over the possession to him. Settlement of the said land was also done by Sk. Rojid Mian by executing a registered kabuliyat in favour of the landlord. In the year 1983-84, Koka Oraon and Mangra Oraon- sons of recorded tenant namely late Chingia Oraon filed an application under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the Special Officer, SAR, Ranchi for restoration of the land of the said plot No.591. SAR Officer, Ranchi rejected the application for restoration vide order dated 18.01.1984 in connection with SAR Case No.83 of 1983-84. Koka Oraon and Mangra Oraon filed C.W.J.C. No.1735 of 2000 (R). The Writ Petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 21.12.2001 and the case was remanded back to the Additional Collector for disposal on merit. The Additional Collector, Ranchi vide SAR Appeal No.6R15 of 1984/85 dismissed the same on 01.04.2002. SAR Revision No.42 of 2002 filed by Koka Oraon and Mangra Oraon was dismissed by the Commissioner on 21.12.2004. The same has attained finality. After death of Sk. Rojid Khan, his legal hairs sold the land to M/s S.K. Enterprises vide registered sale-deed No.2585 dated 04.03.1985 and M/s S.K. Enterprises ultimately sold the land to the petitioner’s company. After purchase of the land, the petitioner applied for approval of building before the Competent Authority for construction of multi-storied building over the said plot of land. The Ranchi Regional Development Authority approved the building plan of the petitioner and also granted its consent for construction. The petitioner started construction and sold out few shops/offices to 12 different persons whose names have been mentioned in paragraph-10 of this Writ Petition (Civil), by registered sale-deed. The petitio
The court held that legislative committees cannot issue binding directives beyond their authority, maintaining the supremacy of constitutional rights.
Point of law: A person being a special Commissioner is not competent to discharge the duties of Commissioner of Endowments. Undisputedly, the Commissioner is working and the post of Commissioner is n....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal for registration of properties based on defective notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was illegal, arbitrary,....
The government does not have the power to entertain a review application unless there is a provision for review under the statute.
Legislative privileges are integral, ensuring proceedings are upheld despite Assembly term expiration; judicial intervention is limited unless jurisdictional errors are clearly established.
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
The impugned notices suffered from serious errors and were set aside. The Court emphasized the need for reasonableness and transparency in administrative actions and highlighted the potential bias of....
A purchaser under an unregistered sale deed does not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property.
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
