REKHA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to de-notify the land of the petitioner from acquisition and to issue rent receipt in her favour. It has further been prayed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma (respondent no. 2) in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2001.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that by virtue of the sale deed dated 31.01.1979, the petitioner had purchased the land under Khata No. 40, Plot No. 1250 area 2.52 acres, Khata No. 4, Plot No. 1251, area 1.90 acres, Khata No. 25, Plot No. 1249, area 2.03 acres and Khata No. 57, Plot No. 1252, area 1.00 acre total area 7.45 acres in Mouza Moriyawan (hereinafter to be referred as "the said land") from Prayag Modi, Raghav Modi and Ram Krishna Modi. Khata No. 25 stands recorded in the name of Ghanshyam Pandey and Others, Khata No. 40 stands recorded in the name of Naro Gope and Ors. Khata No. 4 stands recorded in the name of Anhachh Gope and Ors. and Khata No. 57 stands recorded in the name of Bhikho Gope and Ors. The vendors of the petitioner had purchased the said land from the heirs of the recorded tenants by way of registered sale deed dated 21.07.1976. The petitioner applied for mutation of her name for the said land in the year 1999, however the same was rejected on the ground that the said land has been declared as surplus land of one M/s. Christian Mica Industries Ltd., Domchanch (in short M/s. CMI Ltd.) vide Gazette Notification no. 466 dated 30.06.1976. Thereafter, one Release Case No. 11 of 2001 was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma (Respondent no. 2) whereupon the respondent no. 2 vide letter no. 37 dated 24.05.2002 called for an enquiry report from the Circle Officer, Koderma (the respondent no. 6) and finally vide impugned order dated 24.07.2014, the application of the petitioner was rejected which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the said land. The Khatian of the said land clearly reveals that the same was the raiyati land of the recorded tenants which was subsequently purchased by the vendors of the petitioner and finally came in the hands of the petitioner. M/s. C.M. Ltd. had no concern with the said land at any point of time thus the alleged acquisition has no valid effect. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons namely Smt. Yashoda Rani Sharma and others had filed a writ petition before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court being CWJC No. 3026 of 1998(R) for de-notification of land purchased by them from the descendants of Ghanshyam Pandey of Mouza Moriyawan for plot no. 1249 of Khata no. 25, which was also notified as surplus land of M/s. C.M.I Ltd. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.05.2009, allowed the said writ petition and ordered for de-notification of their land. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this court dated 01.05.2009 passed in CWJC No. 3026 of 1998 (R) (Smt. Jasoda Rani Sharmq and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors). It is further submitted that the enquiry report of the Circle Officer, Koderma (the respondent no. 6) dated 29.06.2002 and 29.08.2013 clearly establish the title and possession of the petitioner upon the said land and he accordingly recommended for de-notification of the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an old lady suffering from cancer and her husband had also undergone treatment for many years and finally died. As such, she could not apply for mutation earlier and the delay in approaching the authority for de-notification is not intentional, rather due to the circumstances beyond her control, she approached the authorities late. It is also submitted that the jamabandi running in the name of recorded tenants was cancelled by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Koderma vide order dated 19.08.1991 without issuing any notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though, at that time itself, the petitioner had become the rightful owner of the said land. It is further submitted that the Gazette notification dated 30.06.1976 was not acted upon by the respondents, as the possession of the land had not been taken.