BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ for quashing the direction of respondent No, 2, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad as communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 1872 dated 1 -4 -92 whereby the said authority has granted permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act laying down four preconditions which are required to be complied with by the petitioner prior to registration of sale -deed.

(2.) THE petitioner, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (shortly B.C.C.L.) is a Government company primarily engaged in the activities of raising cooking coal which is used in Steel Plants, Thermal. Power Stations and other industries. For the purpose of its activities, the petitioner -Company purchased raiyati lands through registered, documents irons time to time from the raiyats who are not members of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste or Backward Class on payment of valuable consideration. It. is stated that respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner sought to impose a. blanket restriction regarding purchase of raiyati lands on the petitioner irrespective of the fact that the vendors are not the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class and the same has been conveyed under the signature of respondent No. 3, the Addl. Collector, Dhanbad vide his memo No. 4116 dated 7 -12 -89. A copy of the said memo has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ application. It is stated, that on receipt of Annexure -1 the petitioner gave a detailed reply queuing the relevant provisions and stating that no permission is required to be taken for sale and purchase of raiyati land of raiyats who are not the members of Scheduled Tribe, In reply to that, respondent No. 3 again reiterated that permission under Section 49(c) of the C.N.T. Act, is required to be: taken in each and every case. Petitioner's further case is that by reason of the aforesaid letter dated 14 -3 -91 respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner illegally and without any authority of law has issued a circular to the effect that for sale of land the price of land shall not be less than the price fixed in the circular Respondent No, 3 also, by letter dated 11 -7 -91. prescribed a form for filing an application seeking permission to purchase the land. It is stated by the petitioner that when the lands are required by the petitioner for mining purposes or any other purposes incidental thereto the petitioner approaches the raiyat for purchase of such land through its officers/agents who after negotiations fix the price of the land and thereafter the vendor in compliance of the directions issued by respondent No, 2 applies in the prescribed form for according permission. The petitioner approached one Adhir Kumar Choube S/o Hari Prasad Choube of village Basuria for purchasing his land situated in Mouza Chhotki Boa and Par Boa appertaining to khata No. 11, plot No. 59 having an area of 12 decimals. The said prospective vendor is neither a member of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class. Petitioner's further case is that after completion of negotiation for purchase of the said land the vendor applied in the prescribed form duly forwarded by G.M. (Estate) to respondent No. 2 for according permission for sale of his raiyati land. Respondent No. 2 said to have granted conditional permission under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, by putting various conditions. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the imposition of such conditions and also the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to put restriction on the transfer of land under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act. A copy of the impugned memo No, 1872 dated 1 -4 -92 by which conditional permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner has been filed and annexed as Annexure -6 to the writ application.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.P. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor -respondent and Mr. M.S. Anwar learned G.P. 1 appealing on behalf of the State.