Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 363 (JHR)

Dipti Mookerjee v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-05-11

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. With the consent of both the parties this application is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. In the present writ application the petitioners have made two fold prayers. Firstly, to quash Annexure-3 dated 06/11/2004, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the order was passed to lodged First Information Report against Alok Kumar Choudhary, Om Prakash Chawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 423, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It was further directed to issue notice to Thakur Prasad Hansda to show cause as to why the departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. Secondly, that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the right, title interest and possession of the petitioners, or the persons claiming through them over the land in question. 3. The background of the case of the petitioners is that these two writ petitioners herein were among the five writ petitioners, who had filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 2082/1996 (R). The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 6/2/2004 by allowing the writ petition and by quashing the order as contained in Annexure-10 to the said writ petition, solely on the ground that the successor Minister, who had passed the order as contained in Annexure-10 to the said writ petition, has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor Minister, which was in the nature of a quasi-judicial order passed and was passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Admittedly, by order dated 10/12/1990 the Minister of Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Bihar had passed a quasi-judicial order, wherein he had held that under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 after treating the family of Ranu Preety Mukherjee as four units the land, which was declared as surplus, be released. This order of the Revenue Minister, which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, was subsequently, reviewed by the successor Minister by issue of Annexure-10 in the aforesaid earlier writ petition and now it has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit of the present writ petition whereby he by reviewing the order of his predecessor Minister, affirmed the order dated 29.12.1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The judgment of this Court in the aforesaid CWJC No. 2082/1996(R) has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the present writ petition. It appears that after relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyunanshinghji Arjunsinghji, and in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur, it was held that the successor Minister had no jurisdiction to review the quasi-judicial order passed by his predecessor Minister. 4. It is asserted that after the aforesaid judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 2082/1996 (R), the writ petitioners through their power-of-attorney holder executed registered sale deeds on 27.10.2004, 28.10.2004 and 29.10.2004 in favour of M/s. Bool Builders Pvt. Limited. It is further stated that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in aforesaid CWJC No. 2082/ 1996 (R) was never challenged before any Forum and the said judgment became final and binding on all the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Deputy Commissioner by issue of letter dated 2.11.2004 constituted a committee for submissions of a report in respect of the land in question and the report was submitted on 6.11.2004 as contained in Annexure-2 to the present writ petition and on the basis of that report Annexure-3 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is absolutely illegal and against the judgment of this Court passed in the aforesaid CWJC No. 2082/ 1996 (R). 5. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent it has been argued that the order 10.1.2.1990 passed by the Revenue and Land Reforms Minister, Government of Bihar, whereby the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1986 was set aside, was never communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the lands measuring 19933.2 Sq. meters, which was declared surplus under Section 10 (3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was duly published in the District Gazette and possession was taken through the Circle Officer on 29.10.1991 and thus the land acquired the status of the Government land free from all encumbrances. It is further argued on behalf of the State that the land which were already notified, unless and until they are de-notified the writ petitioners or any persons claiming through them had no power to sale the same. 6. It is further argued on behalf of the State that the land which were already notified, unless and until they are de-notified the writ petitioners or any persons claiming through them had no power to sale the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the submissions of the learned counsel for the State are devoid of any merit for the following reasons. 7. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1986 was already set aside by the competent authority, i.e. the Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar by his order dated 10.12.1990. The respondent Deputy Commissioner cannot take the plea that the aforesaid order of the Minister was not communicated to him and, therefore, it could not be acted upon or that he was not bound by the said order. When by the said order dated 10.12.1990 the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1986 was already set aside by the superior competent authority and, therefore, no action on the basis of the said order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1986 could have been taken. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1986 became non-existent in the eyes of law. Therefore, any subsequent action taken pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1986 becomes bad in law. 8. Accordingly, I hold that the respondent Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take any action on the basis of the order dated 29.12.1986 passed by the then Deputy Commissioner as the same became non-existence after the order dated 10.12.1990 passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act by the superior competent authority, i.e. the Minister. Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar. 9. If the respondents felt aggrieved by the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2082/1996 (R) they could have very well challenged the said judgment before an appropriate forum but having not done so and now when the said judgment has become final the respondents Cannot taken any action contrary to the judgment passed by this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, findings and observations this writ petition is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-3 to the present writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is hereby quashed.