Jharkhand High Court
Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 11 August, 2021
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.5304 of 2013
---------
Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Kamleshwar Nath Shahdeo ......... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. .......... Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC(L&C)-I
For the Intervener : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate
---
06/11.08.2021 The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.
2. Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the matter may be adjourned for a week, so that he may give response to the interlocutory application being I.A.No.5106 of 2020 which has been filed for intervening the proceeding.
3. Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the Intervener submits by referring to the prayer made in the writ petition that the prayer is being made for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the compensation amount of Rs.1,59,765/- along with the interest in the light of the letter no.990 dated 08.02.1957 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 with a further direction upon the respondents to issue notice regarding Jamindari Return of the Barkagarh Estate of Late Thakur Bishwanath Shahdeo from the petitioner while on the other hand, the writ petitioner is selling out the entire land.
The question which requires to be considered that when the State Government has not made payment of compensation in favour of the writ petitioner then under what authority of Law, he is transferring the land treating himself to be the title holder in the capacity of landlord after coming into effect of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, therefore, during the pendency of the writ petitioner, the order of status quo with respect to the land in question may be passed.
2He further submits that interlocutory application being I.A.Nos.1734 of 2016, 2456 of 2014 and 5106 of 2020 have been filed way back but as yet no response to the said interlocutory applications has been filed and when the case has been taken up today, time is being sought for to file response which is nothing but the writ petitioner wants to drag the proceeding, so that in the meanwhile, he may sale out the entire land in favour of third parties.
4. This Court, considering the aforesaid submission as also considering the fact that interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos.1734 of 2016, 2456 of 2014 and 5106 of 2020 have been filed way back but no response has been filed, however, two weeks' time is allowed to file response.
5. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand dated 28.08.2014 that a decision was taken at the competent level that legally no compensation of land can be paid under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 since no regular land return was filed by the petitioner/ancestors under Section 3B of the BLR Act. It has also been submitted that no legal proceeding was started under the said Act. The government of Jharkhand has decided to release ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs.3,59,471.25/- along with the interest from the "Jharkhand Senani Kosh" which has been created exclusively for the benefit of Ex-Freedom Fighters.
It has further been stated that the concerned file and order has been sent to the Home Department, Jharkhand on 08.05.2014 for taking necessary action since the operation of the "Jharkhand Senani Kosh" is under the administrative control of the Home Department, Jharkhand.
6. Let Home Department of the State of Jharkhand file an affidavit giving therein the para-wise reply as also to enclose the decision, by which, the "Jharkhand Senani Kosh" has been created as per the statement made at para-10 of the aforesaid counter affidavit.
7. The parties will also address on the next date of hearing that what would the effect of making ex-gratia compensation in view of the operation of "Jharkhand Senani Kosh" after coming into effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 enacted for the purpose to provide for 3 the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure- holders in the land of the mortgages and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution of a Land Commission for the State of Bi9har with powers to advise the State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Government consequent upon such transference and for other matters connected therewith.
8. Since the important issue is involved in this matter, therefore, this Court will desire the assistance of learned Advocate General in this case.
9. Office is directed to reflect the name of learned Advocate General in the daily cause list along with the name of Mr. P.C. Roy, learned SC(L&C)-I appearing for the respondent-State.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of the learned Advocate General.
11. Let this order be also communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-cum-Registrar for onward communication to the concerned Registering Authority for his information and needful.
Ad-interim:- -----------
12. This Court has considered the submission made on behalf of one of the applicant-intervenor to the effect that on the one hand, the response to the interlocutory applications is not being filed while on the other, the land in question is being sold out in favour of third party and therefore, an order may be passed restraining the petitioner to transfer the land in favour of third party.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner has objected to such submission.
13. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the issue involved in this case with respect to the applicability of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 on or after enactment as referred hereinabove, deems it fit and proper to pass order of status quo as exists today with respect to the land in question 4 (Khewat No.2) in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and third party right.
14. Accordingly, let status quo as exists today shall be maintained with the respect to the land in question (Khewat No.2).
15. Post this case in the week commencing 20.09.2021.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-