Babu Lal Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Aug 2024WPC/7709/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-emption; section 16(3) Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961; co-sharer; adjoining raiyat; five sale deeds executed to defeat the Act; concurrent findings of DCLR Sadar Medninagar, appellate authority and Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand upheld; writ petitions dismissed; Raghunath (2021) 12 SCC 501 distinguished; Palamu, Jharkhand; land ceiling; Order 21 Rule 34 CPC referred in statutory text.

What did the court decide?

Three courts concurrently found that the petitioner is not a co-sharer and that five sale deeds were executed in his favour only to create a right; mutation runs in favour of the father of respondents no.4 and 5, showing the petitioner to be an outsider to the family. ¶¶111

Babu Lal Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶112

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be purchaser, co-sharer and adjoining raiyat of the land in question, satisfied the conditions precedent under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 so as to challenge the pre-emption allowed in favour of respondent no.4. +1 more

¶¶86

Court's answer

¶¶111

Ratio / Principle

The plea that the petitioner is an adjoining raiyat of the said land is not available to him because it was not raised before any of the three courts below.

¶¶111

Key takeaways

The onus was upon the petitioner to prove that he acted in terms of the statute; he failed to satisfy the conditions precedent under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961, and where a statute prescribes that a particular thing be done in a particular manner, it must be done in the manner prescribed and not otherwise.ratio¶¶111
All three courts rightly considered section 16(3) of the Act; there is no illegality in the impugned orders and no case of interference is made out.ratio¶¶111

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Five writ petitions by a common petitioner, Babu Lal Gupta, challenged orders dated 25.08.2023 of the Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Revision Case Nos. 18 to 22 of 2022), affirming orders dated 23.07.2021 in Land Ceiling Appeal Nos. 02 to 06 of 2013-14 rejecting the land ceiling appeals and upholding the DCLR, Sadar Medninagar orders dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case Nos. 05 to 09 of 2011-12, by which a preemptive petition of respondent no.4 was allowed. Held, dismissing the petitions: the three courts below concurrently found that the petitioner is not a co-sharer and that five sale deeds were executed in his favour only to create a right, mutation running in favour of the father of respondents no.4 and 5, showing him to be an outsider; the newly urged plea of adjoining raiyat was unavailable having not been raised before the courts below; the onus lay on the petitioner to satisfy the conditions precedent under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, which he failed to discharge, and a thing prescribed by statute must be done in the manner prescribed; Raghunath (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. Racha Mohan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others, (2021) 12 SCC 501, which turned on limitation for exercise of the right of pre-emption, was distinguished as not helping the petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

----

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023

¶4

----

¶5

BABU LAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SHRI CHURAMAN SAO, R/O VILL PO ASHEHER, PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

1) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶9

2) THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR PALAMU, AT OFFICE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR DALTONGANJ PO PS DALTONGANJ DIST PALAMU

¶10

JHARKHAND

¶11

3) THE LAND REFOMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR SADAR MEDNINAGAR, OFFICE AT LRDC DALTONGANJ PO PS DATLONGANJ DIST PALAMU JHARKHAND

¶12

4) ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS- PANKI DIST PALAMU, JHARKHAND

¶13

5) CHANDRAMANI PRASAD SHRIWASTAWA, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶14

.... Respondents

¶15

With

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023

¶17

----

¶18

BABU LAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SHRI CHURAMAN SAO, R/O VILL PO ASHEHER, PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶19

.... Petitioner

¶20

-- Versus --

¶21

1) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶22

2) THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR PALAMU, AT OFFICE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR DALTONGANJ PO PS DALTONGANJ DIST PALAMU

¶23

JHARKHAND

¶24

3) THE LAND REFOMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR SADAR MEDNINAGAR, OFFICE AT LRDC DALTONGANJ PO PS DATLONGANJ DIST PALAMU JHARKHAND

¶25

4) ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS- PANKI DIST PALAMU, JHARKHAND

¶26

5) CHANDRAMANI PRASAD SHRIWASTAWA, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶27

.... Respondents

¶28

-1-

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶30

With

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023

¶32

----

¶33

BABU LAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SHRI CHURAMAN SAO, R/O VILL PO ASHEHER, PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶34

.... Petitioner

¶35

-- Versus --

¶36

1) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶37

2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAMAU AT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DALTONGANJ, PO AND PS DALTONGANJ, DISTRICT PALAMAU, JHARKHAND

¶38

3) THE LAND REFOMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR SADAR MEDNINAGAR, OFFICE AT LRDC DALTONGANJ PO PS DATLONGANJ DIST PALAMU JHARKHAND

¶39

4) ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS- PANKI DIST PALAMU, JHARKHAND

¶40

5) CHANDRAMANI PRASAD SHRIWASTAWA, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶41

. ... Respondents

¶42

With

¶43

W .P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023

¶44

----

¶45

BABU LAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SHRI CHURAMAN SAO, R/O VILL PO ASHEHER, PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶46

.... Petitioner

¶47

-- Versus --

¶48

1) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶49

2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAMAU AT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DALTONGANJ, PO AND PS DALTONGANJ, DISTRICT PALAMAU, JHARKHAND

¶50

3) THE LAND REFOMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR SADAR MEDNINAGAR, OFFICE AT LRDC DALTONGANJ PO PS DATLONGANJ DIST PALAMU JHARKHAND

¶51

4) ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS- PANKI DIST PALAMU, JHARKHAND

¶52

5) CHANDRAMANI PRASAD SHRIWASTAWA, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶53

. ... Respondents

¶54

With

¶55

W .P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶56

----

¶57

BABU LAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SHRI CHURAMAN SAO, -2- W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶58

R/O VILL PO ASHEHER, PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶59

.... Petitioner

¶60

-- Versus --

¶61

1) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶62

2) THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR PALAMU, AT OFFICE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR DALTONGANJ PO PS DALTONGANJ DIST PALAMU JHARKHAND

¶63

3) THE LAND REFOMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR SADAR MEDNINAGAR, OFFICE AT LRDC DALTONGANJ PO PS DATLONGANJ DIST PALAMU JHARKHAND

¶64

4) ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS- PANKI DIST PALAMU, JHARKHAND

¶65

5) CHANDRAMANI PRASAD SHRIWASTAWA, S/O LATE RAM NIRAIN LAL, R/O VILL PO ASHEHAR PS PANKI DIST PALAMAU JHARKHAND

¶66

.... Respondents

¶67

¶68

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶69

¶70

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhat, Advocate Ms. Nirupama, Advocate ----

¶71

6 /05.08.2024 In all these writ petitions, a common question of facts and

¶72

law are involved and that is why, all these petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.

¶73

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶74

In W.P.(C) No.7384 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.22 of 2022 by the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.06/2013-14 passed

¶75

-3-

¶76

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶77

by respondent no.2 whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.09/2011-12 was upheld.

¶78

In W.P.(C) No.7382 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.21 of 2022 by the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.05/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.08/2011-12 was upheld.

¶79

In W.P.(C) No.7432 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.20 of 2022 by the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.04/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.07/2011-12 was upheld.

¶80

In W.P.(C) No.7546 of 2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as defect no.4 is concerned, he will remove the said defect in course of the day. Let him do so. The rest of the surviving defects are ignored.

¶81

The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order

¶82

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶83

-4-

¶84

dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.19 of 2022 by the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.03/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.06/2011-12 was upheld.

¶85

In W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.18 of 2022 by the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.02/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.05/2011-12 was upheld.

¶86

Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in all these petitions submits that the petitioner is the adjoining raiyat and co-sharer of the land which is the subject matter in all these petitions which has been purchased from respondent no.5 and preemptive petition was filed by respondent no.4 which was allowed in his favour. He submits that the petitioner has lost up to the revisional court and the learned revisional court has not considered this aspect of the matter that the petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question. He submits in view of that all the orders are illegal and as such the orders

¶87

-5-

¶88

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶89

passed by the authority concerned may kindly be quashed. He submits that co-sharer has also sold the part of the land in question to other persons before executing by the responding no.5 and on this ground he submits that the writ petitions may kindly be allowed. He relied in the case of Raghunath (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. Racha

¶90

Mohan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others,

¶91

(2021) 12 SCC 501 paragraph no.27 of the said judgment is quoted below:

¶92

“We suppose that the aforesaid answers the dilemma i.e. whether the right of pre-emption can be enforced for an indefinite number of transactions or it is exercisable only the first time. We opine that it is only exercisable for the first time when the cause of such a right arises, in a situation where the plaintiff pre-emptor chooses to waive such right after the 1966 Act becoming operational. Section 9 of the said Act operates as a bar on his exercising such right on a subsequent transaction relating to the same immovable property. We also wonder what really remains of this right of pre-emption after so many years in the facts of this case when the purchaser has been enjoying it for more than four decades.”

¶93

Learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the

¶94

prayer on the ground that there are concurrent finding of three courts that the petitioner is the outsider and he is not coming within the family tree of the pre-emptor. He further submits that in view of section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is attracted.

¶95

In the impugned orders passed by the learned court it has come that only to defeat spirit of the said Act, five different sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioner and there is clear cut finding that the petitioner is not coming within the family tree within the adjoining raiyat and it has been held that the petitioner is an out-sider.

¶96

-6-

¶97

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶98

In view of that, section 16(3) of the said Act is quoted below:

¶99

“16(3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document, of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed:

¶100

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period.

¶101

(ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision:

¶102

Provided that where the application is rejected, the cosharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession there of shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per cent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause (i).

¶103

(iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order 21, Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so far as may be, followed.”

¶104

The case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in

¶105

the case of Raghunath (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. Racha

¶106

Mohan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others

¶107

(supra), the main issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was limitation for exercise of the right of pre-emption, whether the limitation shall commence from the first sale deed or from the subsequent sale and it was held that right of pre-emption is only exercisable for the first time when the cause of such right arises but in the case in hand the issue is

¶108

otherwise as such this case is not helping the petitioner.

¶109

-7-

¶110

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

¶111

It has come in the finding of the three courts that the petitioner is not the co-sharer and only to create a right five sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioner and mutation is also running in favour of father of the respondent no.4 and 5 which clearly suggest that the petitioner is an out-sider to the said family and further ground the petitioner is now taking with regard to adjoining raiyat of the said land which is not available to the petitioner in view of the fact that this ground has not been raised before all the three courts. The Court of law is not supposed to deviate from the statute and onus is upon the petitioner to prove that he has acted in terms of the statute and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions precedent under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. It is well settled proposition of law that interpretation of any statute needs to be done in view of the provisions made therein and where statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. All the three courts have rightly considered section 16(3) of the Act. There is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by all the three courts. No case of interference is made out.

¶112

Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.7384 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.7382 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.7432 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2023 are dismissed.

¶113

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶114

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶115

SI/,

¶116

-8-

¶117

W.P.(C) No. 7384 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7382 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7432 of 2023 W.P.(C) No. 7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2023

Babu Lal Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Prasad Mallah Alias Vijay Prasad Malla Vs Union of India through C.B.I

Kajal Gorai Vs Union of India through CBI

Mintu Naskar Vs Enforcement Directorate, Ranchi through Its Assistant Director (Pmla)

Babu Lal Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Urmila Pandey Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

M/S Trust Diagnostic Centre through Its Proprietor Sri Jatin Sahay Vs Bank of India through Its General Manager