Jharkhand High Court
Md.Anwar Ali vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 5 September, 2011
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.4569 of 2011
Md. Anwar Ali. .......... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate.
For the State : Mr. S. Choudhary, G.A.
For Respondent no.6 : Mr. G. M. Mishra, Advcoate.
02/05.09.2011: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th May, 2011, whereby the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, in purported exercise of power under Section 270 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (for short C.N.T. Act), has cancelled the settlement of land made in favour of the petitioner by the administration.
2. Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order is arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.
3. The fact of the case, in short, is that the land, in question, was settled in favour of the petitioner on 15th March, 1984 by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum by way of rehabilitation, as he was the victim of communal riot of 1979 and his shop was burnt to ashes.
4. Later on, M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. filed a case, being Revenue Misc. Case no.24 of 200506 before the Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum Kolhand Division, at Chaibasa, praying for annulling/ cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned Commissioner entertained the said application and cancelled the settlement.
6. It has been submitted that the settlement was made by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East in administrative capacity, the settlement was not under the provisions of C.N.T. Act. The Divisional Commissioner has absolutely no jurisdiction to pass order in exercise of power of control over the Deputy Commissioner under Section 270 of the C.N.T. Act and as such the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
2
7. Mr. G. M. Mishra, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondentM/s. Tata Steel Ltd., contested the writ petition and submitted that the land, which was settled in favour of the petitioner, was a part and parcel of the lease executed by the State Government in favour of TISCO Ltd. The lease was renewable. At the relevant time, the renewal was in process and lease was renewed by virtue of indenture dated 20th August, 2005 with effect from 1st January, 1996. The land, in question, is part and parcel of the lease area of TISCO Ltd. and the same has been illegally settled in favour of the petitioner. Learned Commissioner has rightly exercised his power of control and superintendence in the matter, though there is wrong labeling of the provision of Section 270 of the C.N.T. Act.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the effect of the order is perfectly legal and valid and interference of this Court is not warranted only for wrong labeling of the provision of law.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has claimed that settlement of land was made in his favour by the administration under the scheme of rehabilitation, as he was a victim of 1979 communal riot. The TISCO Ltd. on the other hand has claimed its right, title over the land, in question, by virtue of indenture of lease executed by the State in their favour.
10. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the said order in exercise of power under Section 270 of the C.N.T. Act and as such the order is wholly without jurisdiction and null and void.
11. The said legal position is not disputed by the respondents.
12. in view of the above, without going into the merit of the rival claims and contentions of the parties, regarding their right title over the land, in question, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
13. Admittedly, the settlement made by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioner was not under C.N.T. Act. The Commissioner has set aside the settlement in exercise of power of control under Section 27 of the C.N.T. Act, which is not 3 attracted in the instant case.
14. The TISCO may have grounds, as submitted by Mr. Mishra, but this is not the forum where their claim can be adjudicated upon and decided.
15. In view of the above, the impugned order, being without jurisdiction and unsustainable, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the respective claims of right, title of the parties and a party desirous of such adjudication is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum available in law.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/