Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 286 (JHR)

Banwari Lal Agarwal v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-03-10

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioners with respect to the lands belonging to Mouza Ghatbai, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners name in respect of the said lands, measuring 18.31 acres, were mutated and the jamabandi has been running in their names. The said lands belonging to the petitioners are under the process of acquisition for the purpose of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and the petitioners required No Objection Certificate for the purpose of their claim for compensation before the concerned authorities. The petitioners applied for No Objection Certificate before the Additional Collector, Bokaro, but instead of issuing the said certificate to the petitioners, he referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro after making necessary enquiry held that the petitioners are jamabandi raiyats and their names have been running in the revenue records since 1933. In spite of the said order, the Additional Collector is not issuing the require No Objection Certificate. It has been stated that for the same purpose and in similar circumstance, the Additional Collector, Bokaro has issued No Objection Certificate to other raiyats, which have been brought on record as An-nexure-8 series. The Additional Collector is neither disclosing any reason nor issuing No Objection Certificate to the petitioners. The petitioners, who are bona fide raiyats. are likely to be seriously prejudiced, if they will not be able to submit No Objection Certificate before the concerned authorities. 3. The State respondents have contested the writ petition and filed their counter-affidavit. In paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that there is no provision for issuing No Objection Certificate and as such, there is no question of suffering any loss or injury as alleged by the petitioners. However, in other paragraphs, the respondents have stated that the petitioners have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the lands, in question, as the same are gairmazarua. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation of the respondents that the lands are Gairmazarua and do not belong to the petitioners, is contrary to the entries of their names in the revenue records. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation of the respondents that the lands are Gairmazarua and do not belong to the petitioners, is contrary to the entries of their names in the revenue records. It has not been denied that the jamabandi in respect of the said lands has been running in the names of the petitioners and before them in the name of their ancestors for several decades. Similar objection was earlier raised, which led to the enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner, who after thorough enquiry and consideration on all aspects held that the jamabandi in respect of the said lands has been running in the names of the petitioners and their ancestors since much before 1946. Learned counsel submitted that the Additional Collector has issued No Objection Certificate to the similar situated persons, but arbitrarily alleging in the case of the petitioners that there is no provision for issuing such certificate. The petitioners names have been recorded in the revenue register and the jamabandi in respect of the said lands is running in the names of the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner has observed that there was no occasion for the Additional Collector to contend that the petitioners have no right, title, interest or possession and there is no provision for issuing No Objection Certificate. The said version of the Additional Collector goes to show his mala fide and hostile attitude towards the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. On perusal of the order 13th January, 2005, contained in Annexure-7, it appears that the controversy regarding issuance of No Objection Certificate to the raiyats was elaborately considered by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the lands, in question, and by order dated 13th January, 2005, the Deputy Commissioner held that the lands, in question, have been in peaceful possession of the raiyats for several decades. Any contrary allegation is not justified. Further, it is evident from Annexure-8 series that the Additional Collector, Bokaro has issued No Objection Certificate to other raiyats, namely, Yugal Mahto, Dhaneshwar Mahto and several others. 6. Any contrary allegation is not justified. Further, it is evident from Annexure-8 series that the Additional Collector, Bokaro has issued No Objection Certificate to other raiyats, namely, Yugal Mahto, Dhaneshwar Mahto and several others. 6. In view of the well considered order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the said lands, regarding the same grievance coupled with the certificates brought on record, which were issued to other raiyats in similar circumstance, the stand of the Additional Collector appears to be unjustified and arbitrary. When the Additional Collector has issued No Objection Certificate to other raiyats, there is no justification for refusing certificate to the petitioners, particularly in view of the order dated 13th January, 2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Considering the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Additional Collector, Bokaro, respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioners representation for grant of No Objection Certificate and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. If the petitioners names are running in the revenue records, as held by the Deputy Commissioner, and if certificate has been issued to other raiyats, the said respondent shall not deny the same to the petitioners. The Additional Collector shall pass order and do the needful within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.