Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Goyal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2187 of 2018
-----
1. Rakesh Goyal.
2. Birendra Prasad Pandey.
3. Rekha Goyal.
4. Rajesh Kumar Singh.
5. Pankaj Kumar Pandey. .......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi.
5. Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Angara, District Ranchi.
6. Smt. Sonia Munda. .......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AG
-----
02/14.05.2018: The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) under section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short 'CNT Act'), whereby the order of eviction of the petitioners from the land in question has been passed with a further direction to deliver the possession of the same to the respondent no.6.
2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land, pertaining to Khata Nos.36 and 37, having total area 12.95 acres, situated at village Maheshpur, Police Station Angara, District Ranchi (hereinafter called the said land), is recorded in the name of Sanjha Munda, son of Aghnu Munda and others, as would be evident from the Revisional Survey Record of Right published in the year 1935. One Surab Khan had purchased the land of Khata no.36 through auction sale held on 20.03.1937 and started paying rent thereof. After vesting of Zamindari, the State Government mutated the said land in favour of Surab Khan having found him in possession of the land and rent receipt thereof was also issued in his favour. After the death of Surab Khan, his legal heirs came in possession of the said land and subsequently the petitioners purchased some parts of the said land through different registered sale deeds during the years 2013-16 and jamabandis were also opened in their names. Suddenly, the petitioners received notice vide Memo no.272(ii) dated 12.04.2018 -2- under section 71-A of the C.N.T Act, which has been issued, pursuant to the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the respondent no.4 in S.A.R Case No.13/2016-17, against six persons, namely, Surab Khan, Rajesh Goyal (the petitioner no. 1, however, the same appears to be wrongly typed as Rakesh Goyal in the cause title), Birendra Prasad Pandey (the petitioner no. 2), Lal Sai Munda, Nand Lal Sahu and Mustafa Khan, all residents of Maheshpur, Angara, District-Ranchi by which the possession of the land measuring an area of 12.84 acres (being an area of 9.78 acres, recorded under Khata No.36 and an area of 3.06 acres, recorded under Khata no.37) of village Maheshpur, Thana No. 11, District Ranchi has been directed to be delivered on 05.05.2018 at 11:00 am in favour of Sonia Munda (the respondent no.6). After receiving the said notice, the petitioners enquired into the matter and came to know that a land restoration case was initiated on an application of said Sonia Munda (the respondent no.6), wife of Lenga Munda. Pursuant to the said application, the Anchal Adhikari, Angara held an enquiry and sent his report to the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3 vide Letter no.374(ii)/Ra dated 9.9.2016 directed the respondent no.4 to initiate a proceeding under section 71-A of the CNT Act for restoration of land, measuring area 12.95 acres being an area of 9.89 acres recorded under Khata No.36 and an area of 3.06 acres recorded under Khata No.37 of village Maheshpur, Thana No. 11, District Ranchi against six persons. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 registered a case, being S.A.R Case No. 13 of 2016-17, and called for a report from the respondent no.5, who enquired into the matter through Revenue Karamchari/Circle Inspector and prepared the report showing Rajesh Goyal and Birendra Prasad in illegal possession of the part of the said land. The respondent no.4 passed the order dated 12.02.2018 on the basis of the report of Anchal Adhikari for eviction of the said six persons from the land in question and to deliver the possession of the same to the descendants of the recorded tenants and directed the Anchal Adhikari to submit compliance report, which gives rise to the filing of the present writ petition.
3. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of -3- natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing has been given to them before passing the same. It is also submitted that the impugned order was not passed in fair and proper manner since a dead person, namely, Surab Khan was also made a party respondent in the land restoration case and the order has been passed against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.5 has wrongly been declared in part possession of the said land who has no concern with the land in question. Further, no order has been passed against the petitioner nos.3 and 4 who are in actual possession of the part of the said land. It is further submitted that the recorded tenant of Revisional Survey Record of Right has extinguished his right, title and interest over the said land after its acquisition by Late Surab Khan.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has tried to justify the action of the respondents by submitting that in the impugned order itself it has been observed that the respondent no.5 had issued notice to the petitioners. However, they failed to produce any document in support of their claim. It is further submitted that from the report of the respondent no.5, it appears that the land was transferred in violation of section 46 of the CNT Act, thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have primarily raised the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. On perusal of the order dated 12.02.2018, it appears that the respondent no.4 has passed the order on the basis of the report of the respondent no.5. In the said order dated 12.02.2018, it has been observed that the notice was served upon the illegal occupants by the office of the respondent no.5, however, they did not appear and produce any paper showing their claims. Thus, the recommendation has been made for cancellation of their jamabandi.
6. Section 71-A of the CNT Act is a self-contained code which provides the power and the manner in which the order of restoration of any land is to be passed against the illegal occupant(s). It explicitly provides that before passing the order of restoration, reasonable -4- opportunity to show cause towards the allegation levelled against the transferee, who is proposed to be evicted, is to be provided. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.4 to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. However, the impugned order does not suggest that any opportunity of hearing was given to them.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, while dealing with the historical development of the principles of natural justice, has held as under:-
"35. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak case that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India also the application of principle of natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of notice and giving of hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. Suvarna Board Mills, this aspect was explained in the following manner:
"3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a straitjacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will depend on facts and circumstances of the case."
36. In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, this Court held that whether the statute provides for notice or not, it is incumbent upon the quasi-judicial authority to issue a notice to the persons concerned disclosing the circumstances under which proceedings are sought to be initiated against them, failing which the conclusion would be that principles of natural justice are violated. To the same effect are the following judgments:
(a) Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex (P) Ltd.,
(b) Morarji Goculdas B & W Co. Ltd. v. Union of India,
(c) Metal Forgings v. Union of India, and
(d) Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd."-5-
8. Thus, it is settled principle of law that if a decision is taken by any administrative/quasi-judicial authority against a person affecting his/her rights adversely, the observance of principles of natural justice is not a mere formality.
9. Thus, the impugned order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 and consequential notice dated 12.04.2018 issued by the respondent no. 5 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.4 to decide the case afresh after issuing notices to the petitioners and affording them proper opportunity of hearing so as to enable them to present their case.
10. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/AFR