MEENA YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice vide Memo No. 1834 dated 14.11.2002 issued by the Respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ - and warned that on failure, the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner dated 28.8.1991 shall be cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that permission was granted for transferring the land, measuring 12 decimals, in her favour and order of payment of Salami of Rs.60,000/ - was issued ,by Respondent 1\10. 3 vide Memo No. 224 dated 28.8.1 991. In compliance of the said order, she deposited the said amount and the land, measuring 12 decimals, was transferred in her name through registered sale -deed dated 11.5.1992 by the Khas Mahal Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, constructed a pucca residential house over the said land and has been living therein. The petitioner then applied for mutation of her name in respect of the land whereupon the impugned notice demanding additional amount of Rs. 1,80,000/ - by way of Salami has been issued by respondent no. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said impugned notice.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondents is not just and proper and the same is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction when the petitioner was granted permission vide memo dated 28.8.1991 amount of premium of the land was fixed by the respondent. Certain conditions were mentioned in the said order of permission but there was no condition that any additional premium would be charged at the time of mutation. The petitioner had deposited the amount premium of Rs. 60,000/ - the transfer of land was effected on receipt of the said premium by executing the sale -deed in her favour as far back as in the year 1992. Now, several years after the said transfer, the respondents cannot demand additional amount of Rs. 1,80,000/ - or any amount towards premium/price or consideration of the said transfer, which already completed years ago. After the transfer is effected, the transferor can only claim/realize the 'promised' amount. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had promised to pay the additional price/premium for the said completed transfer. Even the circular on the basis of which the said additional amount is being demanded is of a subsequent date, which cannot be given retrospective effect. The impugned notice issued against the petitioner being Memo No. 1834 dated 14.11.1994 by Respondent No.4 is, thus, wholly illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed.