Jharkhand High Court
Robert Prabhat Minz Son Of Late Mathias ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:17957)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.5224 of 2018
------
Robert Prabhat Minz son of Late Mathias Minz, aged about 75 years, resident of 27 Nayatoli Lane, Old H.B. Road, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.- Lower Bazar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, 4th Floor Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Ranchi Muncipal Corporation, Ranchi, through the Chief Executive Officer, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through the Chief Regional Manager, 5t Floor Maru Tower, Kanke Road, P.O.- Gonda, P.S.- Gandhinagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : In Person
For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II
Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG II
Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG II
For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Karbir, Advocate
For the H.P.C.L. : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. In compliance of the order dated 09.05.2025, learned counsel for the respondent-State pays Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner appearing in person and the petitioner appearing in person acknowledges the receipt of the same. 1 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018
(2025:JHHC:17957)
3. The petitioner, appearing in person submits that this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for several prayers but the first prayer relates to quashing the Annexure-1 of this Writ Petition which is the Letter No.2595 dated 25.09.2018. It is further submitted by the petitioner appearing in person that the said prayer No.(i) has become infructuous, hence, he does not press the prayer No.(i).
4. Accordingly, the prayer No.(i) made in the instant Writ Petition, is rejected as not pressed.
5. The petitioner, appearing in person, further submits that the prayer No.(ii) made in the instant Writ Petition is for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to not to take any coercive action to suspend the operation of the petrol pump, in which the petitioner is the dealer, until he is provided an alternative petrol pump by the respondent No.4 in the vicinity, so that the income and livelihood of the petitioner is not adversely affected but the petitioner, appearing in person, further submits that the prayer No.(ii) made in the instant Writ Petition, has also become infructuous.
6. Accordingly, the prayer No.(ii) is also dismissed being infructuous.
7. The prayer No.(iii) made in the instant Writ Petition is for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. The petitioner, appearing in person, further submits that this is a general prayer and in view of his not pressing the prayer Nos.(i) and (ii), the prayer No.(iii) is not valid.
2 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018
(2025:JHHC:17957)
8. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner appearing in person, the prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner, is also dismissed.
9. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the prayer No.(iv) is for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the Final Declaration issued by the Collector vide Ranchi Gazette Notification No.6/Ranchi dated 18.01.2018 and to restore the possession of the entire land of the petitioner from which he has been dispossessed; as though the said land is within the scheduled area yet such order has been passed without the sanction of the Government, without the consent of the Gram Sabha and without the consent and against the will of the petitioner, being a member of the Scheduled Tribes of the Jharkhand State. Hence it is submitted by the petitioner, that the said prayer be allowed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent- State draws the attention of this Court towards paragraph-16 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 dated 08.07.2024 and submits that substantial compliance of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was done before issuance of the notification under challenge under prayer No.(iv) and preparation of the award vide L.A. Case No.22 of 2016-2017, has also been done. So, the prayer No.(iv), made by the petitioner, in this respect is a misconceived one and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to 3 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which reads as under:-
"41. Special provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.-
(1) Xxxx.
(2) Xxxx.
(3) In case of acquisition or alienation of any land in the Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha or the Panchayats or the autonomous District Councils, at the appropriate level in Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, as the case may be, shall be obtained, in all cases of land acquisition in such areas, including acquisition in case of urgency, before issue of a notification under this Act, or any other Central Act or a State Act for the time being in force:
Provided that the consent of the Panchayats or the Autonomous Districts Councils shall be obtained in cases where the Gram Sabha does not exist or has not been constituted."
and as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others vs. M/S CWE-Soma Consortium passed in Civil Appeal No.6125 of 2016 dated 12.07.2016, relied upon by the petitioner appearing in person, in paragraph-22 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that the land in scheduled area can only be acquired with the prior consent of Gram Sabha or the Panchayat or the autonomous district councils.
12. The undisputed fact remains that there is no Gram Sabha in respect of the land of the petitioner which has been acquired nor is there any autonomous district council. The petitioner, for the reasons, best known to him, has not specifically mentioned in the body of this Writ Petition that the acquisition has been made without the prior consent of Gram Sabha or the Panchayat or the autonomous district council. Of course, in the prayer portion, the averment has been made that the Gazette Notification No.6/Ranchi dated 18.01.2018 be 4 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) quashed and set aside as inter alia the same being without the consent of Gram Sabha or Tribal Advisory Council.
13. It was contended by the petitioner appearing in person that the verbatim of the Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 uses the word "at the appropriate level in scheduled areas under the Fifth Schedule in the Constitution" after the words " the concern Gram Sabha or the Panchayat or the autonomous district council" and the same means the word autonomous advisory council which appears in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which relates to the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram can be used interchangeably with the words 'Tribes Advisory Council' appearing in Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others vs. M/S CWE-Soma Consortium (supra), had the occasion to consider the provision of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and it was conscious of the fact that there is no autonomous district council in the State of Bihar or Jharkhand and it has in interpreting the scope and the mandate of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, did not substitute the words 'Autonomous District Council' with the words 'Tribes Advisory Council'. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Parliament was very much aware about the verbatim appearing in both the Fifth and Sixth 5 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) Schedule of the Constitution and also the statute, if any, where the words 'Autonomous District Council' has been appearing but still in its wisdom it did not include the words 'Tribes Advisory Council' though there is a reference of the word Fifth Schedule to the Constitution in Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the words 'Autonomous District Council' appearing in Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 can be used interchangeably with the words 'Tribes Advisory Council' appearing in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution; even though the words 'Tribes Advisory Council', do not find place in Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
16. This Court also do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner that the words "at the appropriate level in the scheduled areas under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution" means the pari materia words of "Autonomous District Council" in Sixth Schedule appearing in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution i.e. "Tribes Advisory Council", such contention of the petitioner has no legs to stand; because the words "at the appropriate level in the scheduled areas under the 5th Schedule of the Constitution" as appearing in Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the considered opinion of this court, means that in case of acquisition of a small patch of land 6 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) which comes under Gram Sabha, then the Gram Sabha is the appropriate level, whose consent is to be obtained and in case the acquisition of a land which is a larger patch of land covering several Gram Sabha area but under a Panchayat area then the appropriate level, is the Panchayat, whose consent is to obtained. As has also been mentioned above that though it is contended by the petitioner not in the body of the Writ Petition but only in the prayer portion that the consent of Gram Sabha has not been obtained but the same is silent about the Panchayat or the Autonomous District Council. Thus this court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner without any plausible reason has failed to put forth the foundational facts, which are essential for making him entitle to the relief claimed. On the other hand, there is specific averment in the counter- affidavit of the State that there has been compliance of the provisions of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 substantially and the same has remained uncontroverted.
17. Under such circumstances in the absence of any proof of violation of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 having been established by the petitioner handing the absence of any pleading regarding the essential foundational facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer for issuing the writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the said final declaration issued by the Collector vide Ranchi Gazette Notification No.6/Ranchi dated 18.01.2018 is to be allowed and because of rejection of the said prayer for quashing and setting aside the final declaration, the consequential prayer of restoration of the possession of the 7 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) entire petrol pump to the petitioner, is also not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the said prayer is rejected.
18. Now, coming to the prayer No.(v) of the Writ Petition that is for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent No.1 to dismantle the Ranchi Municipal Corporation because of Article 243-ZC (1) of the Constitution which reads as under:-
"243-ZC. Part not to apply to certain areas.- (1) Nothing in this Part shall apply to the Scheduled Areas referred to in clause (1), and the tribal areas referred to in clause (2), of article 244."
that as part IX A of the Constitution of India do not apply to the Scheduled areas referred to in Article 244 (1) is concerned; it is pertinent to mention here that Article 243-ZC (3) of the Constitution of India which mandates that the Parliament, may by law, extend the provisions of part IX A to the Schedule Area and the Tribal Areas referred to in Clause (1) subject to exceptions and modifications.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, in his wisdom, has not made any averment in the Writ Petition that the Parliament has not extended the provision of Part IX A to the Scheduled Areas. So, in the absence of any such basic averment regarding the foundational facts, which is essential to be pleaded, to make the petitioner entitled to any relief and as in the absence of any such basic averment there was no opportunity for the respondents to respond to such contention in their counter-affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case it is not proper to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent No.1 to dismantle the 8 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of Sundargarh Zilla Adivasi Advocates Association and others versus State Government of Odisha and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No.215 of 2012 but in which case the similar prayer in respect of the Municipalities in the state of Odisha was dismissed, in the absence of pleadings regarding the foundational facts. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India referred to its own judgement in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy versus Bangalore Development Authority reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the purpose behind the introduction of part IX-A of the Constitution of India in paragraph number 43 to 45 which reads as under:-
"43. The Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 inserting Part IX-A in the Constitution, seeks to strengthen the system of municipalities in urban areas, by placing these local self-governments on sound and effective footing and provide measures for regular and fair conduct of elections. Even before the insertion of the said Part IX-A, municipalities existed all over the country but there were no uniform or strong foundations for these local self-governments to function effectively.
44. Provisions relating to composition of municipalities, constitution and composition of Ward Committees, reservation of seats for weaker sections, duration of municipalities, powers, authority, responsibilities of municipalities, power to impose taxes, proper superintendence and centralised control of elections to municipalities, constitution of committees for district planning and metropolitan planning, were either not in existence or were found to be inadequate or defective in the State laws relating to municipalities.
45. Part IX-A seeks to strengthen the democratic political governance at grass root level in urban areas by providing constitutional status to municipalities, and by laying down minimum uniform norms and by ensuring regular and fair conduct of elections. When Part IX-A came into force, the provisions of the existing laws relating to municipalities which were inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of Part IX-A would have ceased to apply. To provide continuity for some time and an opportunity to 9 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) the State Governments concerned to bring the respective enactments relating to municipalities in consonance with the provisions of Part IX-A in the meanwhile, Article 243-ZF was inserted. The object was not to invalidate any law relating to city improvement trusts or Development Authorities which operate with reference to specific and specialised field of planned development of cities by forming layouts and making available plots/houses/apartments to the members of the public." (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, this prayer No.(v) of the Writ Petition, being bereft of the foundational facts being without any merit is dismissed.
20. So far as the last prayer of the petitioner being prayer No.(vi) is concerned which is for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to assess and make good the damages to the property of the petitioner as well as the financial losses incurred by the illegal and unauthorized action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from his land itself, in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegal or unauthorized action on the part of the respondents, so, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief in respect of his prayer No.(vi) as mentioned above.
21. In view of the discussions made above, this Writ Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.
22. In view of dismissal of the instant Writ Petition, the interim order, if any passed in this Writ Petition, stands vacated and pending interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of July, 2025 AFR/ Animesh 10 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018