Disposed

Narayan Varnwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Jun 2019WPC/3117/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a general order restraining land transfers. It directed the authority to scrutinize the petitioner's case individually within three weeks, upon which the authority must decide within eight weeks after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to approach Deputy Collector within three weeks; authority to decide within eight weeks after hearing.

Narayan Varnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.3117 of 2018

¶4

--------

¶5

Narayan Varnwal aged about 60 years, S/o Late Aklu Ram Barnwal, R/o C.H.School Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. & P.S. Telaiya, District- Koderma.

¶6

…… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & Dist- Koderma.

¶10

District Sub-Registrar, Koderma, P.O.,P.S. & Dist.- Koderma.

¶11

Circle Officer, Koderma Anchal, Koderma, P.O,P.S. & Dist.- Koderma.

¶12

…… Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, G.A.-IV

¶17

¶18

06 / Dated 21^st June, 2019

¶19

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 29.09.2011 as contained in Memo No.2620 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma whereby and whereunder general order has been passed restraining the transfer of Raiyati Land situated at various mouza of Koderma District without taking into consideration the fact that the land of the petitioner is Raiyati Land in nature and rent receipt has been issued by the Revenue Authority of the Koderma District in favour of the petitioner till the year 2018.

¶20

2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned G.A.-IV appearing for the State of Jharkhand by referring to the impugned decision taken by the authority, has submitted that it is a general direction in order to reach to the conclusion by scrutinizing the nature of land before taking any decision of creating the Jamabandi in the name of person concerned or passing an order for correction in the record of rights or taken decision for mutation pertaining to the particular land.

¶21

3. Such decision has been taken by the concerned authority since there were large number of the illegal transfer of the lands even the Gair Majurua land were/are being transferred on the garb of the issuance of rent receipt and as such the authorities have come out with the decision, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved with the general direction and if the lands of the petitioner is not Gairmajurua, there is no difficulty in taking decision by the authority, therefore, the writ petition may be

¶22

¶23

disposed by directing the competent authority to scrutinize the record of rights of the petitioner and to take decision with respect to the grievance of the petitioner for issuing rent receipt in his favour by passing an appropriate order.

¶24

4. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of.

¶25

5. Upon such submission of the learned counsel for the parties and by referring to the impugned order as contained under Annexure-3 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on 29.09.2011, this Court is of the view that if any decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for scrutinizing the relevant documents before taking any decision with respect to issuance of rent receipts by the Revenue Authorities and either for creating Jamabandi or the correction slip in the record of rights, the same cannot be said to be unjustified.

¶26

6. The grievance of concerned authority is that the concerned party is directly approaching before the registering authority for transfer of the land even the Gairmajurua land is being transferred by taking aid of Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, therefore, the said decision is a bona fide approach of the State authority and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer if general decision has been taken in order to take any illegal action either by the concerned authority or by the party.

¶27

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has submitted that if his case would be considered, he will not be aggrieved with the same.

¶28

8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order for the reason aforesaid.

¶29

However simultaneously it is also relevant to note here that in the garb of the decision, the authority cannot be allowed not to discharge statutory duty. Since the Revenue authorities are bound in pursuance to the provision as contained under The Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, therefore, against the inaction of the State authority, the petitioner has been compelled to challenge the said order as contained under Annexure-3 but this Court, after considering the predicament of the petitioner, is of the view that the authority is required to scrutinize the cases on individual basis.

¶30

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of considering the decision as has been stipulated at Paragraph-4 of the impugned order as such the

¶31

¶32

petitioner is at liberty to approach before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Koderma by filing of an appropriate application along with the relevant documents in support of his contention/claim within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶33

10. Upon such application, the concerned authority shall take decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application/representation after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any.

¶34

11. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶35

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶36

Madhav

Narayan Varnwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Varnwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maa Kalyaneshwari Misthan Bhandar through Its Proprietor Asta Bihari Mudi Vs the Employees State Insurance Corporation

Md Ansar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Naresh Prasad And Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Shankar Prasad Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Savitri Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Madhurani Kumari Vs Vinoba Bhave University through Its Vice Chancellor