Disposed

Prasadi Gope v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2021WPC/2161/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an NOC for a petroleum retail outlet, the High Court held that the matter is justiciable only for the Revenue Department. The Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to file representations. A two-month timeline was directed for the Department to make an informed decision after hearing all parties and conducting an enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Liberty granted to file fresh representations; Dy. Commissioner directed to decide within two months after hearing and enquiry.

Prasadi Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.2161 of 2021

¶2

With

¶3

I.A. No.3892 of 2021

¶4

¶5

Prasadi Gope

¶6

Rameshwar Gope .......... Petitioners.

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶10

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through the Regional Manager (Retail), 3^rd Floor, Nile Complex, Kanta Toli Chowk, Ranchi.

¶11

Vijendra Prasad

¶12

.......... Respondents.

¶13

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioners : Mr. Navniti Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the State : Ms Shivani Kapoor, A.C. S.C.II For Respondent no.3: Mr. M. K. Roy, Advocate -----

¶14

Order No.03 Date: 16.08.2021

¶15

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for declaration that no objection certificate (NOC) dated 25^th February, 2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih- respondent no.2 for establishment of a petroleum retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) over the land, appertaining to Khata no.01, plot no.247, measuring an area of 750 sq. meters, Mauja Pandnakhurd, Circle Birni, District Giridih is illegal, null and void.

¶17

Mr. Navniti Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner no.1 is the son of Late Akal Gope, who had come in possession of the land, appertaining to Khata no.01, plot no.247, area 3.33 acres, Mauja Pandnakhurd, Circle Birni, District Giridih, by way of Hukumnama issued in the year 1342 Fasali. After vesting of Zamindari, Late Akal Gope and his successors remained in peaceful possession of the said land (mentioned in Register-II at page-1/2). The petitioner no.2 is the son of the petitioner no.1. In the month of June, 2019, a dispute arose with regard to the land, appertaining to Khata no.01, plot no.247, measuring an area of 750 sq. meters, Mauja Pandnakhurd, circle Birni, District Giridih, when one Vijendra Prasadrespondent no.4 along with others intended to start a petroleum retail

¶18

-2-

¶19

outlet over the same. Aggrieved therewith, one Sitaram Yadav, nephew of the petitioner no.1, filed a petition in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bagodar Saria (Giridih), seeking initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Case no.81 of 2019. After hearing the concerned parties, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bagodar-Saria vide order dated 22^nd August, 2019 observed that since the dispute between the parties related to title of the land, the same could not be adjudicated under the said proceeding. Thereafter, on 6^th November, 2019 Sitaram Yadav informed the respondent no.2 that the respondent no.4 was trying to obtain NOC for opening a petroleum retail outlet over the land in question on the basis of forged sale deed. On 4^th January, 2020, the Circle Officer, Birni informed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bagodar-Saria that the said land was registered in the name of Akal Gope, who was in possession over the same, and rent was paid by him to the concerned State Government. Thereafter, his successors have been paying rent fixed by the revenue authorities and rent receipts are being issued in the name of Akal Gope. Sitaram Yadav again informed the respondent no.2 on 23^rd February, 2020 that the respondent no.4 was making efforts to obtain NOC on the basis of forged sale deed, however, ignoring the said request, NOC was issued by the respondent no.2 for the land in question in favour of BPCL to establish a petroleum retain outlet. The petitioner no.2 filed a case being Complaint Case no.813 of 2020 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih on 5^th June, 2020 alleging, inter alia, that the respondent no.4 and others were threatening him to surrender the said land in their favour. On 5^th September, 2020, Sitaram Yadav filed Original Suit (Title) no.55 of 2020 in the court of Sub Judge-I, Giridih against Devendra Prasad (brother of the respondent no.4) and others, seeking declaration of his absolute right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. Subsequently, another suit being Original Suit (Title) no.36 of 2020 was filed by one Rameshwar Sao, seeking declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the said land, arraying the petitioner no.1 as defendant no.1 therein. Another proceeding being Case no.147 of 2019 was drawn under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bagodar-Saria with respect to the land in question. In the said proceeding, the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 12^th

¶20

-3-

¶21

November, 2020 held that since there was title dispute between the parties over the said land, the same was beyond the jurisdiction of revenue court. Thereafter, on 12^th April, 2021 the petitioner no.1 represented the Regional Manager (Retail), BPCL- respondent no.3, requesting inter alia to stop construction of petroleum retail outlet over the said land. Another representation was made by the petitioner no.1 on 16^th April, 2021 before the respondent no.2, requesting him to pass an appropriate order to stop further construction over the said land. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 has not yet withdrawn/cancelled the NOC dated 25^th February, 2020 issued in favour of the respondent no.3 for construction of petroleum retail outlet.

¶22

It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the said NOC itself suggests that if a dispute arises with regard to the said land, the same would be deemed to be cancelled. Since there is serious dispute of title over the said land, as would be evident from the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.2 should have considered the representation of the petitioner no.1 and have passed an appropriate order cancelling the NOC dated 25^th February, 2020.

¶23

Ms Shivani Kapoor, learned A.C. to S.C.II, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, and Mr. M. K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, jointly submit that since the present matter is required to be examined by the respondent no.2, the petitioners may file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2, which will be appropriately decided within a time frame.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioners and Sitaram Yadav are given liberty to prefer fresh representation(s) along with relevant documents before the respondent no.2 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation(s), the respondent no.2 after providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, Sitaram Yadav and the respondent no.4 as well as on making due enquiry, if so required, shall take an informed decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation(s).

¶25

-4-

¶26

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶27

I.A. No.3892 of 2021 is also disposed of.

¶28

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶29

Sanjay/

Prasadi Gope v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasadi Gope v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digvijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhote Lal Marandi Alias Chote Lal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jiwan Kumar Yadav Alias Jivan Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bablu Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Shiv Ratan Prasad Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Samsad Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand