MANOJ KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. The Instant writ petition was preferred for quashing the no objection certificate contained in memo No. 159 dated 9.4.2005(Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella Kharsawan in favour of the respondent No. 6 for running a petrol pump at mauza Saraikella, Ward No. 2, khata No. 90, plot No. 07 having an area of 51.1 acre on the ground that the petitioner being co-sharer, no objection certificate should not have been granted in favour-of respondent No. 6 without hearing the petitioner and also that petitioner was in cultivating possession over the said land.

(2.) The respondent-State as well as respondent No. 6 have appeared and filed their counter-affidavits. It has been categorically stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State at paras 12, 13 and other paragraphs that the property for which the no objection has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega is not an ancestral joint property. Moreover, the said no objection certificate has been granted in favour of respondent No. 6, as municipal records of rights reveals that the land has been recorded in the name of respondent No. 6 on the basis of the sale-deed by which the said property was conveyed in favour of the respondent No. 6 It is further submitted that it was not acquired In the name of Mahesh Prasad Sahu and as such the aforesaid facts being established that the land in question has been purchased in the name of respondent No. 6 and accordingly, no objection certificate was granted in the year 2005 vide memo No. 159 dated 9.4.2005 for running the petrol pump over the land in question. Further, from the statement made in para 32 of the writ application and-the subsequent answer of the respondent-State in para 33 of the counter-affidavit, it appears that for the same cause of action petitioner has filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2005-06 before the Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division) Chaibasa, which was pending adjudication and petitioner rushed to this Court without awaiting the outcome of the said Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) Respondent No. 6 has also filed its counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated in different paragraphs including paras 11 and 12 that the land in question was purchased by the respondent No. 6 from his own income and it is self acquired property of respondent No. 6 and, therefore, no question of right, title. Interest and possession of any other persons arises over the portion of the self acquired property of respondent No. 6 He has further substantiated that the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, being competent authority granted the no objection certificate after observation of due inquiry and procedures as contained under the Petroleum Act and the rules framed thereunder.