SHANTANU KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.11.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3406/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition observing that the court is refraining itself from expressing any opinion on the respective claim of the parties inter se since the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings being pursued against the appellant in the respective cases, have been held to be abated.

(2.) The dispute regarding Khata No. 60 in various plot Nos. 2476, 2477, 2478, 2479, 2480, 2481 and 2483 in Mouza Hirapur and the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 have led to proliferation of litigation. The dispute has a chequered history of about three decades. The core issue falling for determination is whether the State Government had taken possession of the land and after Repeal Act, 1999 was adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 24.01.2011 whether entire proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has abated. Yet another point falling for consideration is whether the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to the entire land of 1.61 acres/37 1/2 decimals or to no extent at all.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the land under Khata No. 60, Mauza-Hirapur was recorded in last survey and settlement operations as agricultural lands and 'Bandh' in the name of Narayan Paul and others and the same was sold to Rai Bahadur Shivdas Banerjee by a registered deed of sale dated 29.08.1925. Rai Bahadur Shivdas Banerjee died leaving behind his only daughter Srimati Gouri Rani Devi who sold the land under Khata No. 60 admeasuring an area 1.61 acres to the appellant, Shantanu Kumar Choudhary, by a registered deed of sale. On 01.04.1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force. Notice No. 307 under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was sent to the appellant with regard to the excess land than the ceiling area as per the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On 28.10.1976, the appellant submitted reply to the Collector giving details of the land stating that the land in question is an agricultural land.