Patna High Court - Orders
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 March, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.714 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4514 of 2013
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Sharma
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 642 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4514 of 2013
======================================================
Sangeeta Devi & Ors.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Sahi, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prabhakar Sahai, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
19 08-03-2018This case depicts the manner in which authorities in the district of Gaya have dealt with a simple issue, resultantly creating all sorts of complication and has wasted more than eight months of this Court instead of resolving a simple issue.
The land in question is situated in the district of Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 2/8 Gaya within the limits of Tekari Municipality where an ancient monument namely Tekari Quila is situated. A notification was issued on 23.02.2011 by the State Government in the department of Art, Culture and Youth under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites, Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976 declaring the Quila as a protected area. The appellants claim their right to certain land which was notified as a protected area and it was their case that the area has been illegally included in the protected monument i.e. the Quila. The appellants claim their right to the said property on the ground that the property originally belonged to one Late Bhuneshwari Kuer who had paid rent to the State of Bihar and in the year 1964-67 their ancestors Late Shatrughan Sharan Singh purchased the land from late Rani Bhuneshwari Kuer through registered deeds by absolute sale. It was their case that their land cannot be included in the protected area without acquisition of the same under the Land Acquisition Act and grant of compensation to them.
The writ petition was filed claiming the said benefit and in the writ petition a document Annexure-5 dated 18.02.2013 issued by the Director, Student and Youth Welfare, Art, Culture and Youth Department (Archaeological Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 3/8 Directorate), Government of Bihar, Patna was brought on record which reads as under:-
"vkids i= fnukad 3-12-12 ds lkFk lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 la[;k& 20888@12 ds U;k;kns'k fnukad 7-11-12 ds vkyksd esa dguk gS fd fcgkj izkphu lekjd vkSj iqjkrRo LFky vo'ks"k rFkk dyk fuf/k vf/kfu;e 1976 dh /kkjk&18 ds vUrxZr tehu dk mi;ksx d`f"k gsrq fd;k tk ldrk gS] c'krsZ d`f"k ds fy, lrg ls ,d QqV ls vf/kd xgjh feV~Vh u [kksnuh iM+sA "
Even though the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the acquisition under the Ancient Monuments Act need not be interfered with while hearing this appeal, this Court found that vide Annexure-5 dated 18.02.2013 limited right was available to the appellants to carry out agricultural activities in the area indicated in Annexure-5 and, therefore, as the State Government and the authorities of the district of Gaya are now preventing the appellants from carrying out agricultural activities in the said area, this Court prima facie was of the opinion that the appellants at least are entitled to the limited relief of carrying out agricultural activity in the area by virtue of the right granted vide Annexure-5.
Accordingly, we adjourned the proceedings from time to time between 19.07.2017 onwards on various dates and we had requested the District Magistrate, Gaya to come and Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 4/8 clarify the position as to why agricultural activity cannot be permitted to be carried out by the appellants in pursuance to the right conferred vide Annexure-5. The District Magistrate, Gaya was present before this Court on 18th of September, 2017 and he filed a supplementary affidavit clarifying the position and during the hearing it transpired that in the area where agricultural activities are being carried out, a garden is to be established to beautify the heritage site, and, therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted agricultural activity in the area. The appellants, therefore, amended the memorandum of appeal, implemented the Union of India as a party and made a claim that in case the area is being converted into a garden, it can be done only after following the law pertaining to acquisition of land and after payment of compensation to the appellants and not otherwise. We directed the State Government to indicate to us as to whether they want to acquire the land and if so, how much compensation can be assessed and paid. We were of the considered view that if for establishment of a garden in the ancient area, the land is required, instead of multiplying the dispute we thought it appropriate to assess the compensation in these proceedings itself by active participation of the State authorities and dispose of the matter after granting adequate Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 5/8 compensation to the appellants. We are surprised and we are constrained to note that this simple issue has been complicated now not only by the district administration of Gaya but also by the authorities of the Municipal Corporation, Tekari inasmuch as now the State Authorities have taken a somersault. They deny the right and title of the appellants and have come out with a case that the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the appellants have to be evicted. We are informed that the Municipal Corporation has filed a Civil Suit seeking declaration of their title.
Yesterday when the matter was being heard, we were of the considered view that if the Municipal Corporation is taking its claim to title and has filed a title suit it clearly shows that the appellants are in possession based on the right accruing to them and by virtue of the Sale Deed and, therefore, till decision on the title suit if the State Government does not want to acquire the land, appellants should be permitted to use the land until and unless acquisition proceedings are held in accordance with law or the title suit is decided by the court of competent jurisdiction.
To dispose of the matter on such consideration, we had listed the matter today and today during the course of Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 6/8 hearing of the matter learned counsel representing the State Government placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah and another- (2010) 2 SCC 461 and tried to argue that appellants have no right to the land. It is a Government land which is now under the jurisdiction and possession of the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, before making such a foundation, except for filing affidavits of the officers, no documentary evidence like land records or other materials are produced, based on which it is stated that the land belongs to the Government, it is a gairmajarua land which was transferred by the State Government to the Municipal Corporation and the appellants have no right to the same. They also do not say anything about the claim made by the appellants based on the sale deed issued and the right which accrued to the appellants by virtue of the sale-deed and taking note of all these circumstances, we are not satisfied with the manner in which the officers in the State Government have dealt with the issue. The State Government neither in their return to the writ petition when the matter was pending since 2013 nor till today have made any assertion that the land belongs to the State Government or the Municipal Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 7/8 Corporation and the petitioners have no right to the land. On the contrary, they are unable to explain and say as to how and in what circumstances Annexure-5 dated 18.02.2013 was passed and how the State Government refutes the contention with regard to the claim of the appellants based on the sale deed executed in their favour in the year 1964-67.
Faced with these factors, we are of the considered view that in this case right from the beginning when the writ petition was filed in the year 2013 till Yesterday the officers of the State Government and the Respondent No. 4 have been misguiding this Court and have not brought the correct facts before this Court. That being so, we issue notice to them along with a copy of this order and direct for their presence before this Court on 12th of March, 2018 at 10:30 A.M. and we propose to deal with the officers in accordance with law and if required take action against them not only for contempt of Court but also under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State referred to 3rd supplementary counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 5 and a Gazette notification Annexure- R5/11 published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary on June 2nd, 1953 to say that the land is Government land.
Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016(19) dt.08-03-2018 8/8 Learned senior counsel for the appellants Sri P.K. Shahi submits that he has received information under the Right to Information Act and he challenges the existence of such a notification. If that be so, the authorities who will appear on 12 th of March, 2018 before this Court should produce the original Bihar Gazette of the date in question i.e. 2 nd of June, 1953 for perusal by this Court.
List the matter on 12th of March, 2018 at 10:30 A.M. when the Collector of the district, the Director, the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation and the officer who had issued the order Annexure-5 dated 18.02.2013 shall be present before this Court to explain the queries to be raised by this Court.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) P.K.P./-
U