Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Rohne Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No.5121 of 2024
Decided on : 09-01-2025
(A) Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Section 49(5) - Jurisdiction of the Departmental Minister to cancel land transfers - The petitioner contends that the Minister lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 49(5) as the issue is pending before the Court - The Court directed parties to maintain status-quo over the land until further orders. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Jurisdictional Authority - The jurisdiction of the Minister to cancel land transfers is under scrutiny, with potential complications arising from changes to revenue records during the pending writ petition. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Minister to cancel land transfers made by raiyats in favor of the petitioner, with the matter pending in W.P.
(C) No.2693 of 2021. The Minister’s order directed restoration of land and issuance of rent receipts to the raiyats.
Findings of Court:
The Court stayed the operation of the impugned order and directed maintenance of status-quo over the land until further directions are issued.
Issues: The main issues addressed are the jurisdiction of the Minister under Section 49(5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and the implications of changing revenue records during the pendency of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to maintain the status-quo over the land in question to avoid complications while the jurisdictional issue is under consideration.
Result: Status-quo maintained.
ORDER :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Presiding Officer-cum-Minister, Department of Schedule Tribe, Schedule Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the private respondents (respondent nos.6 to 10) under Section 49(5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Moreover, the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of Departmental Minister to cancel the transfer of land made by the concerned raiyats in favour of the petitioner exercising the power under Section 49(5) of the Act, 1908 is pending consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2693 of 2021 preferred by the petitioner itself.
2. Issue notice to the respondents.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appears and waives notice
4. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G., appears and waives
5. Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate appears and waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.5.
6. The necessity of the issuance of notice upon the respondent nos.6 to 10 will be considered after filing of respective counter affidavits on behalf of the aforesaid respondents.
7. Put up this case under appropriate heading after six weeks.
8. It appears from the impugned order dated 12th June, 2023 that in addition to cancelling the transfer of land earlier made in favour of the petitioner as well as the jamabandi of the same running in its favour, the departmental Minister has directed the respondent no.4 to restore the land in favour of the raiyats and to issue them rent receipts after making necessary correction in the revenue records. Since the jurisdiction of the departmental Minister in exercising power under Section 49(5) of the Act, 1908 is still to be considered by this Court and if during the pendency of the writ petition, the revenue records are changed by the authorities by re-entering the name of the concerned raiyats relating to the land in question and the rent receipts are issued in their favour, the same would create further complications in the matter.
9. Hence, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as existing today over the land in question till further order of this Court.
10. Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 12th June, 2023 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed in Misc. Case No.06 of 2021-22 shall remain stayed.
The jurisdiction of the Minister under Section 49(5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is under scrutiny, necessitating maintenance of status-quo to prevent complications during ongoing litigation.
The jurisdiction of the Minister under Section 49(5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is contested, necessitating the maintenance of status-quo to avoid complications in ongoing litigation.
The court ruled that maintaining the status-quo over the land is essential to prevent complications during ongoing proceedings regarding jurisdiction under the Jharkhand Land Revenue Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of tribal land rights under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and the necessity of following due process before vesting land upon....
Land does not automatically vest in the landlord upon a Raiyat's intestate death; procedural safeguards must be followed for restoration under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
The court affirmed that the Deputy Commissioner's sanction for land transfer under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act complied with statutory requirements, dismissing the petitioner's claims of illegal tran....
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
