Satish Bakshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2612 of 2023

¶3

Satish Bakshi .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3.The Special Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5.The Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranchi. 6.The Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Ranchi. 7.The Circle Officer, Ranchi. .. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Mr. N. Bakshi, Mr. S. Sinha & Mr. R. Gupta, Advocates For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG.III

¶7

07/ 03.01.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.1239 dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-16) of the Special Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner for converting the Khas Mahal lease-hold land of the petitioner to free-hold has been rejected.

¶9

2. The principal ground for challenging the impugned order is that State Authorities have acted in a discriminatory manner as in similarly situated cases of the same area, leaseholds have been converted into free-hold land, whereas the application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground of anticipated future requirement for administrative purpose.

¶10

3. However, in this context, reference is made with regard to Annexure-17/1 & 17/2 wherein the land (s) situated in the same Mauza and under same holding and ward have been converted into free-hold land. In the cases of Sabbir Hussain and Roma Ganguli (Annexure-17/1 & 17/2) vide order dated 24.06.2020 and 15.10.2020 respectively, the leasehold land has been converted into freehold land on the premises that the said land was not required for the public purpose.

¶11

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that instrumentality of the State cannot discriminate in their administrative decisions with respect to the parties who are similarly situated.

¶12

5. Learned AC to AAG.III for the State has forcefully contested the instant Writ Petition. It is submitted that the physical location of the plot in the present case is different from those in those favour the order(s) for conversion has been passed. The impugned order specifically states that the land, in question was situated by the Main Road and, therefore, there was anticipated future

¶13

2

¶14

requirement of the plot, in question for administrative purposes. In the nearby area, the office of Civil Surgeon and other educational as well as health institutions are also situated. Further, in the Master Plan of the Municipal Corporation, flanks of the Main Road and the commercial projects have been earmarked.

¶15

6. There is merit in the submission on behalf of the State that case of the petitioner cannot be equated with that of those cases whose leasehold have been converted into freehold. Physical location of the Plot of land is on the main road and is situated in a commercial hub with other Govt institutions in the vicinity. The future requirement of such plot for administrative need appears to be well merited. Clause 4 of the Khas-mahal Manual provides that as many Governments estate should be retained under the direct management as possible.

¶16

Rule 4 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas- Mahal) Manual, 1953 which reads as follows :-

¶17

“4. Direct management to be the rule - it is the declared policy of Government that as many Government estates should be retained under direct management as possible. Town estates whether small or large should always be kept under khas management. This will enable Revenue Authorities to obtain continuous practical information which it is very difficult to obtain in any other way, of the progress of agriculture, to the extent to which the productive powers of the lands are being developed, and of the increased money value of the produce.”

¶18

This Court is of the view that a Writ Court cannot substitute its subjective satisfaction with respect to the administrative requirement of the land and pass any direction for converting the land, in question into free-hold land. In the instant case, the lease of the petitioner has already been extended up-to the year 2026 and accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶19

The Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶20

Sandeep/

¶21

Uploaded.

Satish Bakshi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Bakshi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Sahu Alias Vijay Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Pathak Alias Dinesh Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punam Saw Alias Poonam Devi Alias Poonam Saw Vs State of Jharkhand

Thachat Viswanath Narendran Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitesh Karmakar Vs the State of Jharkhand