AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 3551 of 2011
The present interlocutory application for substitution has been filed by the legal heirs of sole petitioner namely, Balendu Prasad Sharma who has
expired during the pendency of this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners submits that sole petitioner has been expired on 04.10.2011 leaving behind
his legal heirs who are the applicants of this interlocutory application.
Counsel for the private-respondents has no objection to this interlocutory application.
Counsel for the respondent-State also has no objection to this interlocutory application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the cause of action still survives, this interlocutory application
being I.A. No. 3551 of 2011 is, hereby, allowed. Counsel has already appeared on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner for which
Vakalatnama has been filed along with interlocutory application.
Office is directed to delete the name of the deceased petitioner and insert the name of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner in red ink.
The details of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner as mentioned in the interlocutory application are as follows:
(1) Ramnivash.
(2) Ram Lal Bhardwaj.
(3) Srikant Bhardwaj.
(4) Dayanand Bhardwaj. All sons of late Balendu Prasad Sharma.
(5) Smt. Kunti Devi w/o Late Balendu Prasad Sharma. Â All residents of Mohalla Hehal, P.O. Hehal P.S. Sukhdeonagar District Ranchi.
(6) Smt. Manorama Chandra w/o Sri Abhash Chandra r/o Lands Fort, near district Stadium, Civil Line Chandrapur P.O. Chandrapur P.S. Chandrapur
District Chandrapur (Maharastra), PIN 442401 W.P.(C) No. 135 of 2011
Heard Mr. Suresh Nand Tiwary, counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. assisted by Mr. Kaustav Panda, counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 8.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the following orders:
a) Order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 323 of 1997.
b) Order dated 12.09.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R 15/1996-97/DCTR 314 R 15 of 1996-97.
c) Order dated 11.07.1996 passed by the Special Officer Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 243 of 1990-91 whereby restoration
of an area of 44 Katthas of land appertaining to part of R.S. Plot No. 191, under Khata No. 34 of Village Hehal, P.S. No. 203 Ranchi, Police Station
Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi has been ordered to be restored to the private respondents 4 to 8.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that:-
a) The property involved in this case was originally recorded in the name of Most. Sukro wife of late Mangru Oraon being the sole family successor
of the deceased Mangru Oraon. The said recorded tenant passed away issue less and after her death the said property remained uncultivated/
abandoned and as such under the provisions of section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 right of raiyoti interest devolved upon the land lord
of the village. Accordingly, the land lord resumed the said property and entered into possession and a settlement was made by Sada Document with
one Permeshwar Misir on 23.12.1942.
b) Permeshwar Misir remained in possession of that property and paid land revenue to the land lord and this property was also mentioned in the return
filed by the land lord on vesting of the estate as per the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
c) Permeshwar Misir had made substantial construction on the land in the year 1946-47 and he executed an agreement in favour of the original writ
petitioner for transfer of an area of 44 Kattas of land on 04.01.1966 and put the original writ petitioner in possession of the said land as per the
provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
d) The original writ petitioner by virtue of said agreement and in exercise of his possession has established an industrial unit on the said property. The
value of the constructed property according to the petitioners is more than Rs. One Crore. Thereafter, the property was transferred to the original writ
petitioner by way of two registered sale deeds of the year 1984 and 1988 by the said Permeshwar Misir.
e) Counsel for the petitioners submits that an S.A.R. Case No. 243 of 1991 was initiated by the Special Officer S.A.R., Ranchi under section 71A of
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on an application filed by the private respondents. According to the petitioners the private respondents are no way
related to the recorded tenant.
f) The original writ petitioner filed number of documents before the Special Officer, Ranchi which have been mentioned in the order passed by the
S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi which included the documents relating to settlement in favour of the Permeshwar Misir by the Zamindar and rent receipt
issued by the Zamindar. The agreement was also filed before the said authority. However, the Special Officer, Ranchi rejected the show-cause filed
by the original writ petitioner and allowed the application under the provision of Section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for restoration of
the said land to the private respondents herein.
g) Against the order of restoration of land the original writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was rejected and
subsequently the revision petition was filed before the revisional authority which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.09.1997.
h) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are perverse and he submits that the documents which were relied upon by the original
writ petitioner were not properly considered and appreciated by the authorities. He further submits that he has filed documents along with the rejoinder
affidavit which although are not on the records before the authorities below, but are sufficient to hold that the private respondents herein were
dispossessed as back as in the year 1942 and accordingly, petition for restoration of land filed by them before the S.A.R.Court was itself time barred.
i) He further submits that the documents filed along with the rejoinder affidavit are sufficient to establish the right, title and interest of the petitioners so
far as the property involved in this case are concerned.
j) Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the property involved in this case is situated in the municipal area of Ranchi. He further submits that the
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is applicable in the Municipal Area of Ranchi since 1982. As the private respondents were dispossessed from the
property as back as in the year 1942, therefore, there was no question of applicability of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the respondents submits as under:-
i. By referring the order dated 11.07.1996 passed by the S.A.R. Officer, counsel for the respondents submits that the documents which have been
filed by the petitioners have been mentioned in the order itself which shows that the documents filed is one Sada settlement of land with Permeshwar
Misir by the then Zamindar and one rent receipt through the then Zamindar along with some other documents including one documents named as lease
agreement (sada). However, after considering all these documents the S.A.R. Officer recorded specific findings that the respondents herein are the
descendants of the recorded raiyat and also recorded that the documents which have been filed by the petitioner before the lower court were not
genuine and the petitioner could not prove those documents before the said authority.
ii. After appreciating the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellate authority has recorded specific findings that the Most. Sukro was the
predecessor of the private respondent and there has been no proof whatsoever that the land in question was ever resumed by the ex-intermediary and
accordingly the story which was narrated by the original writ petitioner was totally disbelieved even by the appellate authority.
iii. Before the revisional authority there is a specific finding recorded that no documents have been filed by the original petitioner relating to the period
prior to 1980 and accordingly the authority held that there was no question of application of restoration of land being time barred.
iv. He submits that the original writ petitioner has lost before all the three authorities and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned orders
calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction.
v. He submits that the petitioners have taken new plea in the writ petition and further a new case has been tried to be made out by filing a rejoinder
and introducing various plea and documents which were never produced or raised before the authorities below and such plea or documents cannot be
appreciated for the first time in the writ court after the original petitioner has lost before the three authorities.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court is not
inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners on the following facts and reasons:
I. The story of resumption of land by the ex-intermediary / zamindar and the subsequent documents, in connection there with, has been disbelieved by
the S.A.R. Officer while passing the impugned order dated 11.7.1996 and the said findings have been reiterated by the appellate authority in impugned
order dated 12.09.1997. Thereafter, the revisional authority has also rejected the revision filed by the original writ petitioner.
II. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders and there is no occasion or material to give any contrary finding in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
III. So far as the documents which have been filed by the petitioners for the first time in this Court along with the rejoinder affidavit are concerned,
the same cannot be taken note of and cannot be considered for two reasons, firstly, these documents have been filed for the first time in the writ
Court that too in the rejoinderaffidavit, and secondly, otherwise also new facts and new documents cannot be appreciated for the first time by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which have been filed challenging the orders of the three authorities before whom the original writ
petitioner has lost the case.
IV. The original writ petitioner has lost in all the three courts in the instant case. From the records of the case, it appears that there has been a
consistent findings that the recorded raiyat was the predecessor of the private respondents and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
these findings also.
V. So far as the plea of the petitioners regarding the application of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is concerned and being made applicable to the
Ranchi Municipal area in the year 1982 and that the recorded raiyat or the respondents herein were dispossessed from the property in the year 1942,
the same does not help the petitioners in any manner and the same does not call for any consideration particularly in view of the fact that as per the
records the private respondents were dispossessed from the property by virtue of the two registered sale deeds executed by Permeshwar Misir in
favour of the original writ petitioner in the year 1984 and 1988 which is certainly after 1982.
VI. So far as the claim of part performance and possession of the property under section 53 A of Transfer of the Property Act, 1872 and the story of
agreement of sale which has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners and mentioned at para 9 of the writ petition is concerned, It appears that
this plea has been taken for the first time in the writ petition. Further, from the records it appears that the original writ petitioner had filed a Sada
document before the authorities below and had described it as a lease deed. Thus the petitioners are taking shifting and contradictory stand from what
has been taken before the authorities below. Thus, the new plea which has been taken by the petitioners vide para 9 of the writ petition is also fit to be
rejected.
VII. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned, the private respondents herein were dispossessed from the property by virtue of registered sale deed
executed in favour of the original writ petitioner in the year 1984 and 1988 and the application for restoration of land was filed in the year 1990-91,
therefore, the plea of the petitioners for restoration of land being time barred is also rejected.
Being devoid of any merits, this writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, the petitioners are granted eight months’ time to evict the premises. If the petitioners do not vacate the premises, the Circle Officer
will ensure that the possession of the property is handed over to the private respondents herein within a period of three months thereafter.