M/S Jain Trading Corporation through Its Partner Pratap Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A No. 604 of 2023

-------M/s Jain Trading Corporation, a Partnership Firm, having its Works at Demotand, PO-Demotand, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, through its Partner Pratap Jain, aged about 71 years, son of late K.L. Jain, resident of Hazaribagh, PO-Hazaribagh, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, PO-Hazaribagh, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶7

The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, PO-Hazaribagh, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶8

The Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh, PO-Hazaribagh, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh … … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG --------

¶11

11/Dated: 16.10.2024

¶12

M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)

¶13

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3371 of 2011.

¶14

The said writ petition had been filed by the appellant for quashing an order of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh contained in a Letter No.629 dated 05.07.2010 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as 07.05.2010) whereby and whereunder his application for recognizing him as a raiyat was rejected.

¶15

A reading of the said order indicates that the Additional

¶16

1

¶17

Collector had relied upon a decision dated 02.07.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the said relief of issuance of the raiyati certificate to the appellant.

¶18

Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the note put up to the Additional Collector bearing the date 30.06.2010 in which there is signature of the Deputy Commissioner bearing the date 02.07.2010 under the word “अस्वीकृत”.

¶19

It is not disputed by the respondents that prior to passing this order, notice had not been given to the appellant. This note dated 30.06.2010 refers to the non-production by the appellant of certain documents because of which allegedly the appellant’s application for issuance for the said certificate was not entertained.

¶20

When the petitioner questioned this order before the learned Single Judge, the State appears to have projected a totally new point i.e. that there is no provision for issuance of the raiyati certificate; and this was accepted by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petitioner’s writ petition challenging the order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh.

¶21

Counsel for the appellant contends that if there was no provision for issuance of the raiyati certificate according to the respondents, the Additional Collector could have returned the application made by the appellant for issuance of the raiyati certificate only on that ground and could not have given any other reason or endorsed/approved any decision of the Deputy Commissioner giving

¶22

2

¶23

other reasons why said certificate cannot be issued to the appellant.

¶24

Counsel for the State does not dispute the legal position about absence of a provision for issuance of raiyati certificate. Therefore, he cannot also support the impugned order passed on grounds other than this ground particularly when the appellant had not been put on notice to produce any material in support of his claim for issuance of raiyati certificate, and the appellant had also not been heard before passing of the order on 05.07.2010 by the Additional Collector or on 02.07.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶25

Moreover, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that any claim for compensation for the land in respect of which the raiyati certificate is sought should be made to an appropriate authority under the National Highway Authority Act and he could not have filed an application for grant of raiyati certificate.

¶26

In this regard, we wish to point out that the challenge in the writ petition was to the order of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh dated 05.07.2010, and if there was no provision under which the petitioner’s application for raiyati certificate could have been granted by the said authority, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the said order instead of advising the petitioner as he did in the impugned order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is not correct in dismissing the writ petition and he ought to have allowed it and set aside the order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh and declared that the petitioner may avail any

¶27

3

¶28

other remedy sic in the absence of any provision for issuing such a certificate.

¶29

Therefore, the appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the appellant; and the order dated 05.07.2010 contained in Letter No.629 of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh is quashed. Appellant is granted liberty to pursue any other remedy available to him at law for getting recognition as a raiyat .

¶30

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶31

Amit/Vikash

¶32

4

M/S Jain Trading Corporation through Its Partner Pratap Jain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jain Trading Corporation through Its Partner Pratap Jain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niwas Kumar Ray Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jis Industrial Training Company Pvt. Ltd. Thro Its Authorized Signatory Samir Narayan Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Mandhan Minerals Corporation Thro Its Partner Namely Anil Kumar Tanwani Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Industries Mines and Geology

Bijay Kumar Jha Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary Department of Coal Union of India

Srimati Bhagya Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Sub-Division, Chaibasa

M/S Green Power System Represented by Its Authorised Person Ashok Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented by Its Chief Secretary